eae 


SSS 


Digitized by the Internet Archive | 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/refutationofaria0Opaul_0O— 


ber, a a : 
REFUTATION 


ARIANISM: 


~ 


A DEFENCE 


OF THE 


_ PLENARY INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE SUPREME 
DEITY OF THE SON AND HOLY GHOST, THE ATONEMENT, 
ORIGINAL SIN, PREDESTINATION, THE PERSE- 
VERANCE OF THE SAINTS, ETC. ; 


IN REPLY TO 


DRS. BRUCE, MANT, MILLAR, AND GRAVES. 


x 


“’ Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.’’—Paun. 
‘tS Contend earnestly. for the faith once delivered to the Saints.”’—Jupr. 
‘‘ Buy the truth, and sell it not.’,—So.tomon,. 


“a, 


= 


TO WHICH Is ADDED, 


A DEFENCE OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 


BY THE REV. JOHN PAUL, 
CARRICKFERGUS. 


NEW-YORK: 


PRINTED FOR AND PUBLISHED BY ROBERT LOWRY. 


1828. 


_ PREFACE. 


= 


‘Wirta a deep-rooted aversion to the usual practice. 
.of apologizing, I feel it necessary to write a preface 
replete with apologies. My readers, I presume, are 
prepared to ask a variety of questions, all of which 
deserve to be answered. First, they will ask me, why 
my Reruration did not appear sooner. I answer: 
Much time was lost in vain expectation that some abler 
advocate would plead the same cause: and, after I 
had reluctantly engaged in the controversy, my vari- 
gus avocations, and a number of other circumstances, 

_ the detail of which would be altogether uninteresting, 
- tended greatly toretard my progress. I regret indeed 
_..in common with my readers, that my REFUTATION oF 
ARIANISM did not appear sooner; but I regret still 
more, that a much longer period of time was not al- 
lowed me for executing a task so arduous and impor- 
tant—for writing a book which embraces a whole body 
of controversial divinity—a book which professes to 
‘defend almost all the leading doctrines of our holy re- 
ligion. A question, however, of far more importance, 
and involving a far more serious charge, will probably, 
be put by some of my readers. In your Refutation of 
Arianism, they will say, why do you attack the Church 

_ of England? Answer—I do not attack the‘Church 
of England ; I defend the Church of or I de- 


ae 
ie 


iv 


fend the doctrines of the Thirty-nine Articles. But 
why, they will ask, do you attack the Lord Bishop of 
Down and Connor, Dr. Millar, and Dr. Graves—An- 
swer—lI do not attack those Dignitaries? I am not the 
assauant: Lam only the humbie defendant: I reluc- 
tantly submit to the painful necessity of defending my 
own principles—the doctrines of the Church of Scot- 
land—the doctrines of the Church of England—against 
the attack of those venerable Divines. Was it not, ” 
however—the querist will say—was it not highly im- 
proper to class the Arminians with the Arians ?>—An- 
swer—lI did not class them; they classed themselves 
with the Arians. Dr. Millar made common cause 
with Dr. Bruce in attacking Calvinism. It is not, 
therefore, from choice, but from necessity, that I have 
attempted to defend my principles against their united 
attack. But was it not imprudent to make so many 
enemies ?’——Answer—lI hope I have made no enemies 
at all. Surely the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, 
Dr. Millar, Dr. Graves, and Dr. Bruce, are Divines 
of more candour and liberality than to be offended at 
me for an humble attempt to defend my own principles 
—principles which 1 believe to be founded in fruit : 
reason and scripture. | 

‘Still, however, it will be said, that had I balevii no 
notice of the Dignitaries of the Church of England, 
the members of that church would have rallied round 
me; the Arminians would have patronised my publica- 
tion ; 1 would have had more friends, and larger pro- 


fits—All this may be true ; but it does not convince 
me of the impropriety of my conduct. I contend for 


truth, not for money. Accustomed from, my youth 
to submit to privations for the sake of truth, and a 
good conscience, I will not temporize now when I am — 


2 paar 


‘old. No man can finally be a loser by an uncom- 
promising attachment to truth. {£ know who has said, 
* Be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown 
of life.” 

But what necessity, it may be said, for mentioning - 
the names of those Arminian divines in my Prospectus, 
or in my Title-page ?—Answer— Because I do not 
choose to fight under false colours : I do not wish to 
practise deception; I wish my Prospectus or Title-page 
to be a faithful index of my book. My readers, how- 
ever, will carefully observe, that whilst I contend 
against Arminianism, as well as against Arianism, I do 
not regard the two systems as equally remote from 
truth. TI believe that the difference between Armini- 
ans and Calvinists is frequently more in words than in 
ideas : J believe that multitudes who are Arminians in 
head, are Calvinists in heart. Were the Calvinistic 
system fairly represented and well understood, I am 
confident opposition would in a great measure cease. 
The view I have given in the following Defence is, I flat- 
ter myself, agreeable to the standards of the Churches 

of England and Scotland—it is substantially the same, 

if presume, with that of the great body of Calvinists. 
This view [ have never yet seen opposed. Anti-Cal- 
Vinists, so far as I know, have never yet ventured to 
attack it, , though it has been frequently exhibited by. 
“such writers as Edwards, Fuller, Newton, and Scott. 
When our opponents attack Calvinism, they attack a 
view of it which"the Calvinists themselves do not ae- 
‘ knowledge.— They form a kind of medley system, 
‘ composed of passages taken out of their natural order 
_ unguarded expressions extracted from the works of 

ancient divines—and large quotations from Antino- 
‘mian writers—this JOS ths, monstrous system 
92 


vi 


——a system which nobody ever beiieved, and which 
nobody defends—they heroically attack, and trium- 


phantly demolish. They then shout victory, and are . 


hailed by the acclamations of the unthinking multitude, 
the dupes of their artifice, By such sleight of men 
and cunning craftiness the simple are deceived, truth 
is laid low, and error enjoys a temporary triumph. 
‘This disgraceful. mode of warfare I am reluctantly 
compelled to expose in the subsequent pages. Should 
- Arian or Arminian divines think proper to follow up 
their attack—and I have no objections at all to see 


them in the field—I shall expect them to come for-— 


ward as honourable antagonists. I shall expect them 
to attack, not a shadow, not a man of straw, not amock 
Calvinism, but the real Calvinistic system, as exhibit- 
ed in our standards, and defended in the following 
sheets. 

‘Some readers may See say, You have treated 
Dr. Bruce with too little ceremony—You are guilty 
yourself of the very same things which you censure in 
him—Y ou blame him for using abusive epithets, such 
as fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots j and yet you em- 
ploy language 1 no less severe, as msrepresentation, ca- 
lumny, forgery, &c.—Answer—I do not blame the 
Doctor merely for calling his opponents fanatics, en- 
thusiasts, amd bigots; but I blame him for using those. 
epithets in a licentious and wanton manner, without 
proof.—lf I arraign a man for theft, and bring for- 
ward evidence to substantiate my charge, I may call 
him a thief; but if without proof I apply such epithets, 
oo myself to an action for defamation of charac- 

Dr. B. employs opprobrious epithets without 
cat or shadow of evidence: it is for this I blame 
him—it is for this I censure him. On the contrary, I 


j 


vii 


hope my readers will find, that such terms as misré- 
presentation, calumny, forgery, &c. are used by me, 
only when the charges implied in those epithets are 
fully substantiated,—But why use such epithets at all ? 
—Answer—Because I wish to call things by their 
Proper names. I do not wish to call evil good, and 
good evil. I do not wish by soft names to reconcile 
men’s minds to errors or to vices—a practice quite 
fashionable indeed, but fraught with consequences the 
most baneful and pernicious. "Towards those learned, 
and highly respectable Divines, on whose writings I 
animadvert, I am conscious of no feelings but those of 
kindness and benevolence. Should any of my expres- 
sions appear too strong, or be regarded as personal, I 
shall feel much mortified 3 for, Ican assure my readers, 
that, if I know any thing of my own heart, it was 
errors, not men, I meant to attack. 
My “ Refutation”’ is a work entirely argumentative. 
Against such books I know there is a prejudice—a 
prejudice, as I conceive, highly unreasonable. Rea- 
soning and argument characterised the first propaga- 
tion of Christianity.’ The founder of our religion 
reasoned and argued: when on,! twelve years of age, 
he disputed with the Doctors. During the whole pe 
riod of his public ministry we find him addressing the 
understandings of men—reasoning with the Pharisees 
and Sadducees, the Scribes and the Lawyers—detecting 
their impostures, and exposing their corruptions, re- 
-_futing their errors and putting them to silence. Imi- 
tating their Divine Master, the Apostles and Evange- 
lists reasoned and argued. In the synagogues of the 
Jews, the Apostle Paul reasoned every Sabbath. In 
the school of Tyrannus he disputed daily. The Epi- 
curean and Stoic Philosophers, the Jewish Rabbin, 


Vill 


and the learned counsellors of ‘Mars-hill, he encoun- 
tered by reasoning and confounded by argument. ‘The 
proto-martyr Stephen reasoned down the ‘ Libertines, 
“the Cyrenians, and ‘Alexandrians—they were not 
«© able to resist the wisdom and. spirit by which he 
spake.” | Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and all the 
fathers of the Reformation, reasoned and argued. By 
reasoning and by argument the strong holds of the 
“man of sin” were stormed, and a spiritual emanci- 
pation gloriously effected. Nor need we anticipate — 
a victory over the many-headed monster ERROR, if we 
refuse to wield those spiritual weapons. Impressed 
with this conviction, I have humbly attempted to de- 
fend by argument what I regard as the great funda- 
mental truths of Christianity. I have addressed my-~ 
self, not to the feelings, the passions, or the prejudices, 
but to the understandings of my readers. . 

In replying to the polemical sermons of the Rev. 
Dr. Bruce, I have endeavoured to meet every argu- 
ment which I considered material. The only subject 
which I have not discussed, is the eternity of punish- 
ment. The Doctor’s idea, that the wicked will be 
punished in hell for ascertain period of time, and then 
annihilated, being a completely gratuitous assumption, 
and having no countenance from either Scripture or 
reason, I considered unworthy of a refutation. What 
reason to believe, that the happiness of the righteous 
will be everlasting, and the misery of the wicked only 
temporary, when, in the very same passage,* the very 
same word in the original is employed to designate the 
duration of both? With regard to the wicked, Our 
Saviour assures us, that “ their worm dies not, and the 


">® Matt. xxv. 45. 


1X 


»» fire is not quenched.” Now, if the Doctor’s idea be 
correct, the Redeemer’s declaration is not true: for 
‘surely the worm of conscience will die, when the sub- 
ject is annihilated—surely the fire of misery will be 
quenched, when the unhappy victims are all reduced 
to nothing ! Those who wish to see a triumphant 
defence of the eternity of future punishment, may 
consult “* Edwards against Chauncey,” and President 
Edwards’ “ Remarks.” ! 

Doctor B., in his preface, boasts of the progress of 
Arian principles, particularly in the Synod of Ulster. 
I am happy, however, to find, that the Synod has de- 
nied the truth of the charge, and very properly re- 
pelled it by a counter-declaration. ‘The truth is, that 
in the Synod of Ulster, Arianism seems to be in the 
last stage of a consumption, When an Arian minister 
dies, he is almost uniformly succeeded by one of ortho- 
dox principles. Of the Synod of Munster there is no 
room for boasting: that body appears to be reduced 
to a skeleton, and Arianism to be dying a natural death. 
That Arian principles have obtained the ascendency 
in Geneva, I believe is true; but the tide is turned, 
and the Arians are endeavouring to stem it by perse- 
cution. The attempt. however is vain: those who 
have drank the new wine of Arianism are turning © 
from it with disgust, exclaiming, as they embrace their 
ancient principles, ‘* The old is better !” 

The reader of the following treatise will not sup- 
pose, that I mean to condemn every thing contained 
in the Doctor’s sermons; nor that I approve of all 
those sentiments which I have not opposed. The ser- 
-mons reviewed contain many things which I not only 
approve but admire: particularly on the intercession 
of Christ and the doctrine of repentance. They also 


x 


contain many things which J disapprove, but on which 
my limits would not allow me to animadvert. Should 
the Doctor himself, or any of his fr iends, think proper 
to stand for ward in defence of his principles, 
I may then have an opportunity of extending my 
animadversions. In the mean while, it is my heart’s © 
desire and prayer to God that he would render my 
humble exertions instrumental in arresting the progress 
of error, and extending the triumphs of truth, ‘ Arise, 
*O God, plead thine own cause,” 


‘ 


CONTENTS. 


Lom 


CHAPTER IT. 


Objections to Dr. Bruce’s mode of managing the controversy. 


. Page. 
OBsEcr. I.—Abusive epithets applied to his opponents—Fana- = 
__ tics—Enthusiasts—Bigots de erae) - - = 33 
OBsECcT. If.—Doctor Bruce meanly attempts to raise a prejudice 
against his opponents, by raking together the most foolish and \ 
absurd things found in their writings during a period of three 
hundred years - - - = - - - - 21 
OxsEcT. UI.—The Doctor misrepresents and misstates the doc- 
trines of his opponents—he puts in their mouths sentiments 


_ which they never entertained, never uttered, never wrote - 25 
OgesEecT. 1V.—He blends Calvinistic doctrines with those of Anti- 

nomians and other enthusiasts — = Gr tate - - 36 
OprEct. V.—He has not studied, and he does not understand, the 

system he opposes - ~ - - - - id. 


OxBsEcT. Vi.— Finding that his principles cannot be defended on 
the broad basis of Divine Revelation, he retreats to the citadel 
of the four Gospels—nor is he willing to appeal to these as 
the standard of doctrine; but only to those few verses which 
are found in them all* - - - se - 

OgsEcr. VII.—The Doctor’s principles have a. chilling and be- 
numbing tendency—by sinking divine truth in our esteem, 
they are calculated to repress a spirit of inquiry and to arrest 
the progress of religious knowledge - - - - 716, 


CHAPTER It. 


Doctor Bruce’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures 
- repelled - - - - - - - = - 42 
What the Doctor recommends asa “sure guide,” shown to be 
_ false, destructive, and impious - eu es - . 
What he recommends as a “ safe rule,” shown to be subversive of 
_ all divine ordinances and doctrines—inconsistent with his 
’ priuciples as a Protestant, i Dissenter, and a member of the 


41 


Antrim Presbytery ie Se ee " . 5 54 
A maxim laid down in ‘his *« Being and Altributes” examined— 
leads to Deism, to Atheism, and to Blasphemy - - , 60 


Wie Ay % See Chapter I]. p. 48, 


& 


ry é 


Xi 


| CHAPTER III. 
The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ defended. 


Srcr. I.—Proved from his names - - ° - 64 
Sxcr. Il.—from his attributes - - - - - - 77 
Sxrct. Il].—from his works - ~ - - - - 79 
Sect. 1V.—from the worship ascribed to him - a ae 85 
SacT. V.—from the absurd and blasphemous consequences of 

_ Anti-trinitarian principles - - - - - - 
Srct. VI.—Objections answered _ - - - - - 95 


CHAPTER IV. 
The Supreme Deity of the Holy Ghost defended, and the absurdity 
- - 0 


of the Arian system exposed Sa on - 
Doctor Bruce’s view of the sin against the Holy Ghost shown to be 
erroneous - < 2 fe Sets a 2 a 42 
Leis objections answered siti, RT Ta ‘A116 
Baptism and the Apostolic Benediction, on Arian principles, in- 
volve great absurdities Bi te es - = - - 118 
CHAPTER V. a 


The Atonement Defended. 
Sect. I.—The necessity of it proved nt om - ates AD 
Sect: II].—Reconciliation shown to be necessary on the part of . 


God as wellasonthepartofman = - -os - 126 


Srcr. [J.—The death of Christ vicarious - - - - 1832 
Secor. IV.—Objections answered - - - - - 142 
Smct. V.—The moral tendency of the Atonement = - - - 148 
Secor. VI.—Extent of the Atonement yr ie Oe a ere 8! 
: CHAPTER VI. | : 
Original Sin defended - oie ~ one - - - 158 
Calvinistic opinion. - - = - oy - - - 159 
Arminian opinion - - “ - - =) "162 
Arian opinion - - - - - - - - =) ab. * 
Dr. Millar inconsistently joins with Dr. Bruce in condemning the 
Westminster Divines’ description of Original Sin, whilst the 
Ninth Article of his own Church teaches that doctrine in the 
strongest language - - - + be me - 165 
Dr. Bruce’s objections answered =—- - - - ~tano 
His attempt to answer Calvinistic reasoning shown to be weak and 
unphilosophical - he ae - - wee te LTRS 
ee CHAPTER VII. oY oe 
: Predestination defended. ze 
Secor. I.—The grace of God distinguishing—Arminian doctrines 
‘quite subversive of the grace. of God - - - - 175 
Sxcr. 1].—Opposition to Calyinism originates in erroneous ideas 
of liberty and free agency - eh uae = - - 186— 


Sect. II].—Election and reprobation more formally defended, — 
and the attacks of the most eminent Anti-Calvinists repelled 205 


eee CHAPTER VIII. — 
The Perseverance of the Saints’defended - - - ~- 246 


Sreene and Confessions defended <= © aif ode - - + 261 


eS 


as ee ae 


Le We va 


r t 


- “study,” &c. ( 


INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 


Objections to Dr. Bruce’s mode of managing the con- 
troversy.— Objection 1st—Abusive epithets applied 
to his opponents, — Fanatics— Enthusiasts—Bigots. 


In the controversial Sermons of the Rev. Dr. Bruce, we 
would naturally expect fair, candid, and manly discussion. 
His reputation as a Divine, and celebrity as a scholar, 
would lead us to conclude, that he would never condescend 
to excite vulgar prejudice by any of those low, mean arts, 
which too frequently characterise inferior controversialists, 
In these reasonable expectations we feel ourselves not a 
little disappointed. ‘The Doctor’s mode of managing the 
controversy appears to me, in many respects, highly excep- 
tionable. I shall state my objections in order. . 


OBJECTION I. 


I object to those abusive epithets with which he constantly 
loads his opponents. Fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots, 
with him are quite common appellations—appellations 


~ 


-. which, it must be confessed, are but too well calculated to 


foment in the minds of his hearers Pharisaic pride ; to rivet 
upon them the chains of their prejudice; and to inspire 
them with hatred, animosity, and contempt. 

Whilst the Doctor charges his opponents with fanaticism, 


enthusiasm, &c. he probably flatters himself, that he is 


quite free from those odious vices. It is possible, however, 

that he may be mistaken. Let us examine a few of his 

sentiments. : | | 
In his first Sermon, (p. 6,) he assures us, that ‘The 


-“humblest rustic, who is in the habit of assiduously and 


** seriously perusing his Bible, knows all that is known by 
“the wisest man upon earth of the divine nature.—The 
‘** existence, attributes, and providence of God are his daily — 


- 


14 


Now, if all this be so, for what purpose have thousands 
of sermons been preached? For what purpose have 
thousands of treatises been written on those subjects ?— 
What becomes of Dr. Clarke’s famous demonstration of the 
Being and Attributes of God? What becomes of Aber- 
nethy’s Sermons? And, above all, what becomes of Dr. 
Bruce’s own treatise ?—that treatise on the Being and At- 
tributes for which he expected the Aberdeen prize? Why 
‘publish volumes upon volumes on the Being and Attributes 
of God, when the humblest rustic knows as much of the 
divine nature, as the wisest man upon earth ?—What egre- 
gious trifling ! 7 ty 

With regard to the same illiterate rustic, the Doctor as- 
sures us, that “the scenes of nature are exhibited to his 
«©mental eye—that he is taught the benevolent uses for 
«which they were designed ; and how they demonstrate 
<< the wisdom, power, arid goodness of their Creator—and 
<¢ what more,’’ he asks, ‘‘ does the wisest philosopher know 
‘‘ than this? Make out an account of all his surplus know- 
“ledge, and what does itamount to?” 0 

Of course, Ray, Derham, Paley* and others, who wrote | 
volumes on the wise ends and benevolent uses of the works 
of God, were all laborious triflers!)§ They knew nothing 
more on those subjects, than the humblest rustic! Why 
then should the world be pestered any longer with such 
useless lumber? All such treatises, according to Dr. B., 
are quite superfluous ? ger 

But this is not all—The Doctor’s rustic is a character 
still more extraordinary. ‘He is conversant with all the 
<¢ authentic information which any man possesses, of the 
« conduct of Providence in the government of nations.” 

Indeed! And does Dr. B. mean to assert, that there is 
no authentic history in.the world, but Scripture history ? 
Does he mean to assert, that the histories of Rollin, Robert- 
son, Gibbon, Mosheim, and a thousand others, give the 
man of letters no advantage over the rustic, in contemplat- 
ing the wisdom of God in the conduct of Divine Providence? 
A atrange and novel assertion indeed! nije ae 

Finally—The Doctor’s rustic is net only on a level with” 
the ‘philosopher; he is far above him !—‘* He can look 
# Ray's. Wisdom of God in the Works of Creation. Derham’s Astro- 


theology, and Physico-theology, and Paley’s Natural Theology, are 
the works referred to. 


15 


« for at to ne end and destination with as much substan- 
** tial knowledge, and MORE cond irmed assurance, than the 
“man of letters.” 

If thig doctrine be true, then—Wo to learning! Down 
with all Academies, Colleges and Universities! Learning 
is no longer a blessing but a curse! What pious parent 
would ai his son toa “College or an Academy, if convine- 
-ed that, in these seminaries, no substantial knowledge can 
be acquired—and that a liberal education, so far from being 
the handmaid of religion, would shake his son’s assurance 
with regard to his prospects of endless glory ?* 

I acknowledge, indeed, that learning, when not imbued 
with piety, is a dangerous thing. It has been the bane of the 
religious world ; and the source of almost all the errors and 
heresies, with which the church of God has been hitherto 
infested. Those ‘‘men who have crept into the church 
«‘ unawares, bringing in damnable heresies, denying the 
Lord that bought them,” &c. have been, generally, nen of 
learning ; but destitute of piety—‘‘ ever learning, but never 
*‘ able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”’ | 

All this, however, amounts to no proof, that ignorance is 
better than learning—and that a man ‘+ should study to be- 
‘come a fool, a perfect simpleton in worldly matters,” as 
the Doctor has taught us in his second sermon.—-On the 
contrary, Solomon’s proverbs still remain true, ‘For the’ 
‘soul to be without knowledge is not good. —Wisdom 
« excels folly as far as light excels darkness.’ 

The preference which Dr. B. gives to the illiterate rustic 
is not more extraordinary, than his ideas respecting the ac- 
quisition of knowledge. In page 68 he assures us, that 

-s¢ we are furnished by our Creator with an instinctive know- 
‘sledge of certain necessary truths, both natural and moral” 
—And in page 74 he asserts, ‘‘ Such knowledge of the 
*¢ qualities and uses of things about us, as is necessary, to 
‘‘ subsistence, is easily acquired by instinct, or a simple ap- 
6“ plication of our corporeal senses ; such religious truths, 
*< also, as are essential to godliness and eternal life, are 
‘readily discovered or apprehended by conscience, or learn- 


] 


* Ta the subsequent paragraph, the Doctor speaks of *£a view of 
ereation, &c.”—a view dispersed—a view accumulated—a view deliver- 
ed. In order to prove his favourite point—tbat the bible-reading peas- 
ant is superior to the man of letters—did he really conceive it necessary 
to abandon his own accuiacy by fs ola such a massacre of language? 


16 


‘‘ ed from scripture by the exercise of our reason, and our 

‘¢moral faculties.’ an . s 

Instinctive knowledge of truths both natural and moral! 
Acquiring knowledge by instinct !—Discovering truth by 
conscience !—Learning truths, not only by reason, but by 
our moral faculties !—'These are new things under the 
sun.* . 

In his epistle dedicatory the Doctor writes thus: « For 
‘“ my own part, am more afraid of singularity, than ambi- 
** tious of originality. I have always felt a dread of deal- 
‘¢ing out my own crude conceptions fos your spiritual 
*‘ nourishment; and have preferred food, that had been 
“* well concocted by more skilful hands,’ &c. 


» 


Without waiting to inquire whether food previously con- 


cocted by other hands be most nutritive—or whether hands 
be the proper organs of concoction—I may venture to 
affirm, that the passages on which I have been animadvert- 
ing were never concocted by any hands but the Doctor’s. 
Though, in the sermons under review, there 1s little origi- 
nality, yet the sentiments quoted above must be acknow- 
ledged to be completely original. Nobody, | presume, will 
be so uncharitable as to suspect, that any of *‘ those emi- 
‘« nent ministers, Haliday and his (Dr. B.’s) grandfather, 
‘¢ Drennan and Brown, Mackay and Crombie,’’—or that 
any other member of the Antrim Presbytery, ever taught 
doctrines so unphilosophical, so hostile to learning. 
Without any proof, our learned author politely stigma- 
tises his opponents, as fanatics and enthusiasts. With great 


~ 


_* From a divine, who assumes the right to look down with contempt 
on so learned, and so respectable a body, as the Synod of Ulster—(as 
the Doctor does in his late speech before the proprietors of the Belfast 
Academical Institution)—from. a divine, who superciliously charae- 
terises the Ulster Synod, as having no claims either to science or lite- 
rature, we would naturally expect a more favourable specimen of 
literary and scientific talent, than we find exhibited in the sermons 
under review; and particularly in the preceding quotations. What 
minister—what probationer—what student ofthe Synod of Ulster, does 
not know that the doctrine of innate ideas, or instinctive knowledge, 1s 
long since exploded? The veriest smatterer in metaphysics knows 
that the idea of acquiring knowledge by instinct is absuid. He knows 
that progressive improvement is utterly incompatible with instinct. He 
knows that conscience is a witness: he knows that conscience is a 
judge: and he knows also, that whatever metaphysical account may 
be given of it, no metaphysician was ever so fooltsh as to imagine that 
its office is—THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. Finally, he knows that 
truths can be learned by no moral faculty distinct from reason, 


bg 


ts 


respect, I would entreat him to lay aside « that inordinate 
self-love which we indulge for ourselves ;’’* and to read 
with candour the preceding remarks; he will then proba- 
bly be convinced, that his own doctrines are not quite so 
free from fanaticism and enthusiasm, as he at first imagined. 
He will probably sce reason for being more sparing in the 
use of such opprobrious epithets in future. He will perceive 
the propriety of ** casting first the beam out of bis own eye, 
‘¢ that he may see more clearly to pull the mote out of his 
*« brother’s eye.”’ ; , 
On the epithet bigot, so liberally bestowed by the Doc- 
tor, I shall now offer a few remarks. ‘+ Bigot,’? says an 
eloquent American writer, ‘is a brand of infamy, not less 
*« than infidel or heretic ; and quite as freely applied. Se- 
** rious as the subject is, one can hardly forbear smiling at 
“ the mistakes we are apt to commit in estimating our own 
*‘ characters, ‘Mhere are no more decided bigots on earth, 
“ than those who are bigoted to liberality.” ate 
_ That these observations are perfectly appropriate, the fol- 
lowing paragraph (p, 52, 53) will clearly evince. «If then, 
“ any candid and inquisitive person be desirous of knowing 
what light may be obtained from the researches of learn- 
ed and pious men, I do not advise him to resort to coun- 
cils, nor any other assemblies of divines ; because they 
all differ from each other, and have generally been con- 
‘““vened for the purpose of fomenting discord, and sup- 
pressing free inquiry, or to promote somé political view. 
«¢ Neither do I recommend commentators and controver- 
sial writers; for these are generally warped by their 
attachment to some human system of doctrine, which 
** has been engrafied on the word of God; and are, in 
general, the most strenuous advocates for some favourite 
“* system, for which they wish to be distinguished as cham- 
pions. For the same reason, you should not consult any 
authors, who are deeply involved in controversy, or 
‘‘bound to any human profession of faith. But there are 
‘* some paraphrases, which express the sense of scripture 
‘in plainer, more intelligible or more modern language 
“than our translation, without enlarging on particular 
topics. These may be applied to with profit, if their 
authors be men of liberal sentiments, and not servilely 


$ sah The Doctor’s own language,—Being and Attributes, (p. 103.) 
oe 


jt Rae 


“ devoted-to any particular sect or denomination. Of this 
“ class are some of the most distinguished authors in our 
‘‘Janguage, and most eminent philosophers of modern 
‘© times, neither influenced by sectarian prejudices, nor fet- 
‘“ tered hy professional trammels. ‘There are some inen of 
“this character in almost every church ; men who, from 
‘< principle, prejudice, or interest, adhere to its forms and 
‘ doctrines in general, but keep themselves at liberty to 
“« éxercise the right of private judgment on particular ques- 
“tions. [hese authors, though justly chargeable with 
‘‘ some degree of insincerity by their respective churches, 
and of timidity by more resolute Christians, are, upon 
‘¢ the whole, among the safest guides.” aa 

Such is the liberality and candour of our learned author. 

Solomon thought, that “in the multitude of counsellors 
there is safety ;”? but Dr. B. is of a different opinion. 

He does not allow his hearers to consult councils, or as- 
semblies of divines. By this means he contrives to keep 
out of their hands such books as the Westminster Confes- 
sion of Faith, Catechisms, larger and shorter, the Articles 
and Homilies of the Church of England, &c. “y 

‘Again; he prohibits the perusal of authors bound to any 
human confession of faith. By this measure he proscribes, 
at once, all books written by the divines of the Church of 
England, the Church-of Scotland, or any other church 
requiring subscription.*. stein 

Once more ; he proscribes another large class of books 
—ALL COMMENTARIES WHATEVER! None of his hearers 
must look into commentaries. All such works are entirely 
prohibited. : 

Still farther he proscribes, Ist, «‘ Controversial writers,” 
and, @ndly, ‘* Authors deeply involved in controversy.” 
By the proscription of those two classes—two, I mean, 
according to the Doctor’s arrangement—he prudently 
keeps out of the hands of his hearers the works of the 


* T have subscribed a confession of faith; my writings are therefore 
useless. Dr. B. has proscribed them. He has prohibited his hearers 
from reading any such books. Before this sentence of proscription is 
executed, 1 would say, * Strike, but hear.”’? Hear my defence of creeds 
and confessions before you condemn them. My defence is before the 
public. It has silenced one Antitrinitarian opponent. If Dr, B. choose 
to renew the attack, the field is open. If he decline entering the lists, 


I shall consider my reasoning in favour of confessions equal, at least, 


- 10 his ipse diwtt against them. Wee rns 


ioe Sac ats acai ae Sete stupa wera ces sass es suk Sea aie tp Ra LE ee ee 


sa 
Fa 


a 


oe 


eee eye Sats 


eg 


a) ee are 
Sao 


19 

most eminent independent divines.. Dr. Owen, President 
Edwards, Fuller, Wardlaw, and many such lights, must all 
be extinguished. Dr. B. has condemned them to be « put 
under a “bushel. Why ?—they are either “ controversial 
“writers,” or ‘* authors deeply involved in controversy.” 
Let us not, however, imagine that our author meant to pro- 
hibit the éontroversial writings of Arians. By no means. 
That he did not mean to prohibit their controversial wri- — 
tings, is evident from two decisive facts. ist. If he had 
intended to proscribe their writings, he would not have 
countenanced the republication of the controversial ser- 
mons of Price and Channing. 2ndly. He would not have 
published, and put. into the hands of his hearers, his own 
controversial sermons. 

Magowan, in his letters to Priestly, happily blending hu- 
mour with good sense, says: ‘I heartily concur with you 
*« in believing the Bible to be the only rule; and, to adopt 
*¢ your own words, sincerely wish that all persons, of all 
** sects and parties, would study their Bibles more, and 

** books of controversy less; yet, I shall have no objection 
* to all people, of all sects, reading what may pass between 
‘“ you and me. I am ready to think, indeed, that it is usual 
‘** for polemic writers to suppose that all books of contro- 
*versy are hurtful, except those of which they themselves 
*« happen to be the authors.’ 

Agreeably to these judicious remarks, it 1s quite evident 
that Dr. B. regards as hurtful, and therefore proscribes, all 
books of controversy, eacept his own and those of his Arian 
brethren !—An admirable plan indeed! and well calculated 
- to promote the Arian system ! 

Such are the books prohibited by our learned author :— | 
1. All books published by councils and general assemblies. 

—2. All books published by the Ministers of the Church of 
England, the Church of Scotland, or any other church that 
requires subscription to a confession of faith.—3. All com- 
mentaries.— 4. All controversial books, except those pub- 
lished by himself and his brethren. Such is the Index Ez- 
purgatorius* of Dr. Bruce !—yes, of that Dr. Bruce who 


interlards his sermons with the opprobrious epithets of 
enthusiasts, fanatics, and bigots ! 


a * The Index Reiurcatarie was a catalogue of those book svohibit- 


Le : ved by ihe Charch of homes 


86 ! 

; 4 

{t must be granted, indeed, that whilst our author prohi- 
bits commentaries, he does not prohibit all books. With 
certain qualifications and restrictions, he tolerates the use 
of paraphrases. Why he should prohibit the one class and - 
tolerate the other, is not so clear. That commentators are 
more warped by attachment to human systems than para- 
phrasts, is by no means self-evident. Besides, Dr. Camp- 
bell, (a divine no.less eminent than Dr. B.) in his Philoso- 
phy of Rhetoric, condemns paraphrases, as calculated to 
weaken and dilute the meaning of the sacred oracles ; and, 
on that account, gives to commentaries a decided prefer- 
ence. But, waiving these things, it must be acknowledged 
that our author has not prohibited ali books; that, under 
certain restrictions, he has tolerated paraphrases—and pa- 
raphrases too, written by the members of different churches: 
but what sort of members? Not those who conscientiously 
believe the principles they profess ; but men who, tamper- 
ing with their own conscience, burst the trarmmels of their 
profession—men who cowardly and hypocritically subscribe 
orthodox creeds, whilst they teach a different kind of doc- 
trine! Is not this the plain meaning of the Doctor ? If not, 
I should be glad to know what he means. According to 
-Dr, B.,—if I do not mistake his meaning, and I presume I 
do not,—a cowardly hypocrite, subscribing one class of 
doctrines, and teaching another, is ‘* upon the whole among 
the safest guides’”’—a safer guide than the orthodox minis- 
ter, who conscientiously believes, and sincerely teaches, the 
doctrines he has subscribed! Such is the liberality of that 
divine who so liberally bestows on his neighbours the epi- 
thet—s1eors ! ese Ne 
Dr. B. censures those, who ‘‘ neither read nor listen to 
‘any thing that is inconsistent with their distinguishing 
*« tenets, and who esteem it an abomination to read a book 
‘‘ written by one of an opposite persuasion’’—observing, 
** that implicit faith is no longer the peculiar characteristic 
‘‘ of the Romish communion. It is equally prevalent among 
** Protestants of this description, and renders them equally 
«< invulnerable to (by) reason and inaccessible to argument.’ 
May not such characters turn round, and, with a sarcastic, 
sneer, reply, ‘* Physician, heal thyself?’ What Protestant 
divine of any denomination—what priest—what Pope— 
ever made so bold an attempt to stop up the avenues of 
knowledge—to render men invulnerable by reason, and in- 
accessible to argument—to wrap them up in the impeze- 


21 


trable veil of.an implicit faith—and, in a word, to consti- 
tute them fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots ? 


OBJECTION I. 


Dr. B. meanly attempts to raise a prejudice against his 
opponents, by raking together the most foolish and absurd 


things found in their writings, during a period of three hun- 


dred years. He quotes, for instance, from the Monthly 
Repository, the following absurd expressions of Luther : 
** Christ became the greatest transgressor, murderer, thief, 
*¢ rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was, or could be, in the 
«* whole world; for he, being made a sacrifice for the sins 
** of the whole world, is not now an innocent person, and 
‘© without sin.’’* | | 
In an unguarded moment did such absurd, I had almost — 
said blasphemous, expressions drop from the pen of Luther | 
the reformer. What then? Are they believed? are they 
adopted ? By no means. They are, so far as [ know, uni- 
versally condemned. Why do our opponents ransack the 
archives of antiquity ; select detached sentences from musty 
_ volumes which few possess; and attack rash and unguarded 
sentiments, which none believe? Why do they expend all 
their strength in attacking those weak or foolish sayings, 
which have been a thousand times attacked, and which no- 
body will defend? If they think they are able to oppose 
the orthodox faith, why do they not come forward, and 
attack it as men? Why do they not attack the doctrines of 
the Church of England, as contained in her articles and ho- 
milies ? Why do they not attack the doctrines of the Church 
of Scotland, as contained in the Westminster confession-of 
faith, and catechisms larger and shorter ? Why. are they 
so shy, so cautious, and so timid in attacking those subordi- 
nate standards? Why do they attack them so seldom, and 
80 slightly? They know, that they contain the real senti- 
ments of the great body of the orthodox—sentiments, which 
thousands are willing and able and ready to defend. __ 
Again: Why do not our opponents attack our standard 


* All that Luther meant was, that our blessed Redeemer stood in 
the room of the murderer, the thief, Wc. so as to bear the penalty of 
their sins. The Apostle says, “he was made sin for us!” Luther. 
‘says, “he became a sinner for us.” The meaning of both is, that he 
became a substitutionary sin-offering. I do not, however, defeud 
_ buther’s phraseology. . 


22 


works, both of the last and the present century? Why do 
they not attack an Edwards, ‘a Fuller, and a Wardlaw, a 
Scott, anda Magee? Dr. B. never looks such champions 
in the face; but with great magnanimity he attacks a few 
antiquated sentiments—sentiments a thousand times at- 
tacked, and long since abandoned. 


A 
& Thrice he routed all his foes— . 


* Aud thrice he slew the slain!” > 


{ will not imitate Dr. B. I will not pollute my pages by 
recording the absurd and blasphemous expressions of Arius 


and his followers. I will not attack the dead. but the liv- _ 


ing. I will show to the world, that our venerable reformers 
were not the only men, in whose voluminous writings a few 
unguarded or foolish expressions may be found. I will 
make it appear that even Arian Doctors, now in the nine- 
teenth century, are not altogether exempted from this come 
mon frailty of our nature, and that the learned Dr. B. him- 
self is not quite infallible. A few quotations from his works 
will show, that, in writing silly and absurd things, he is not 
behind “the very chiefest”’ of our reformers. f 

In his Treatise on the Being and Attributes, (p. 88, 89,) 
the Doctor denoiminates creation, ‘ that superlative act of 
power.” When we read a few sentences farther, we find 
him declaring, that other ‘‘ acts may require MORE power 
‘¢ than creation itself.” Waving thus compared these dif- 
ferent acts of power ; and having shown us that other acts 
may be greater than the superlative act; he gravely informs 
us, that itis ‘idle to pretend to compare things that are 
¢ unknown, and to institute a comparison between degrees 
‘© of power, when they are all equally incomprehensible !”” 

He compares acts of power, and then tells us that it is 
idle to compare them! He pronounces one to be the 


superlative act, and then tells us, that other acts may be. 


greater! And all this confusion of ideas is exhibited in 


that very specimen, inserted in the Belfast News-Letter, for 


the purpose of showing off, and recommending the Doctor's 
Treatise. ‘ 

Passing over the two next sentences, we find him writing 
thus : | fl 
« The power that could produce a single plant, is a sub> 
* ject of wonder. Its structure and growth, the expansion 
*«< of the leaves, the penciling of the flowers, the ripening 
‘ of the fruit, and, above all, the mysterious configuration 


Tie a 2 


ee ee rar ee 


i 
4 # 
BS 
4 


SS 


23 


‘st of the seed, are alike inimitable and inexplicable by the 
_ ** most ingenious.naturalist. x 

In this ‘paragraph the Doctor declares, that all the cir- 
cumstances mentioned are alike inimitable and inexplica- 
ble; and yet, in the very same paragrapli, he affirms that 
they are not alike inimitable : The configuration of the seed 
is above all! 

Dr. B. commences his abstract proof of the Being and 
Attributes of God thus: (p. 27.) ‘‘ In order to lay a firm 
‘* foundation for proving the existence of God, we must 
*« carry back our thoughts beyond the period of creation, 
** into that vast vacuity, that dark abyss without matter or 
‘© motion, where time itself stood still. ‘The mind is swal- 
** lowed up in its own idea. It feels a similar vacuum 
‘¢ within itself, the same darkness, the same inanity, the 
*« same inactivity: yet here we must lay the corner-stone 
*¢ of the universe ; here must we seek for the cause of all 
“things. In this unsubstantial void of metaphysical ab- 
** straction, let us look out for some fixed point, on which 
‘* we may rest, till we bring the world into being, and put 
the mighty machine in motion. This point is our own 
‘¢ existence.’ 

In this beautiful paragraph, the Doctor directs us to carry 
back our thoughts beyond the period of creation, into that 
vast ; vacuity, that dark abyss without matter or motion, 
where time itself stood still. In this vast vacuity we must 
look out for some fixed point, on which we may rest, till 
we bring the world into being, and put the mighty machine 
in motion ; and this point is our own existence. So then, 
the vast vacuity was no vacuity ; ‘ for our own existence was 
a fixed point in it!—So then, we existed before we exist- 
ed !—we existed before the creation!—before there was 
any matter, or any motion !—where time itself stood stil] !— 
and upon our own existence we take our stand! 

Our author assures us, that in reflecting upon this « vast 
vacuity,” the mind feels a similar vacuum within itself—the 
same darkness—the same inanity—the same inactivity. 
’ That the Doctor’s mind felt all this, no person who reads 
the preceding paragraph can reasonably doubt. 

_ Itis impossible to dismiss the passage under review with- 
out remarking, that it is the commencement of the Doctor’s 

abstract proof of the Being and Attributes of God—the 
most aes part of that proof, for which he modestly 
expected the Aberdeen prize! 


24 


From our author’s Treatise on the Being and Attributes, | 
let us now turn our attention to his polemical sermons, that. 
volume, on which I design more particularly to animadvert. 

In page 19th, he assures us that the Almighty, through 
the medium of the Jews, ‘communicated to the whole — 
‘“ world a full declaration of his will, a free dispensation of 
“grace, and a glorious immortality, reserved for ail his 
‘* faithful servants by the Lord Jesus Christ. 

What! did the Almighty ever communicate through the 
Jews, a full declaration of his will to the whole world? 
Never! One quarter of the world has never yet enjoyed | 
this privilege. ea, 

Did the Almighty ever communicate through the Jews, 
a free dispensation of grace to the whole world?) Never’ 
One quarter of the globe has never yet enjoyed this privi- 
lege. fs 

Did the Almighty ever communicate through the Jews, 
a glorious immortality to the whole world? Never! Had 
he communicated a «“ glorious immortality” to the whole 
world, the whole world was consequently saved!’ A com-_ 
fortable doctrine indeed, and sufficiently liberal! But how 
does it accord with the doctrine which the same Dr. B. 
teaches? (p. 49.) Itis stated thus: ‘ But it is a strange 
‘¢ imagination, that our Saviour should leave this world as 
‘‘ he found it, ignorant of those essential principles, with- — 
** out which they could not be saved.”’ 

What sentence was ever written by Luther, by Calvin, or 
by any of our reformers, half so absurd or uncharitable as. 
this ?—A sentence as inconsistent with liberality as with 
grammar. What! Did Jesus Christ find the world ignorant 
of those essential principles without which they could not 
be saved? If so—tremendous idea !—so long as they had 
previously remained in that state, the whole human family 
were damned ! 

When Dr. B. finished his volume of sermons, he pro- 
nounced it consistent both with itself and the gospel. (See 
preface, p. 2.)—How far it is entitled to so high an enco- — 
mium, let the reader of the preceding pages judge. Fone 

The quotations [have given—and I have given only a 
few—are sufficient to show, that were I to rake together 
all the foolish and absurd things written by Dr. B.; and 
were I to imitate the example he has set me, by ransacking 
the writings of Arians for centuries past; it would be an 
easy thing to exhibit a picture a thousand times more dark 


25° 


and gloomy, than that exhibited in the Doctor’s sermons: 
For every foolish or absurd expression found in the writings 
of Luther, Calvin, or any other eminent reformer, I will 
engage to point out ten in the same number of pages writ- 
ten by the learned Doctor. “Are we accountable for all the 
foolish or absurd things written by any of our venerable re- 
formers? No more accountable than modern Arians are — 
accountable—than the Antrim Presbytery is accountable, 
for all the foolish and absurd things written by the Ex- 4 Shi 
cipal of the Belfast Academy. 


I come now to 
OBJECTION Il. 


In opposing the orthodox, our author resorts to another 
stratagem, still more despicable. He not only rakes together 
—or rather refails—the most foolish and absurd expres- 
sions, found in their writings for centuries past; but he 
misrepresents, misstates, and puts in their mouths, senti- 
ments which they never entertained, never uttered, never 
wrote. He forms a man of straw, knocks him down, and 
shouts victory. He forges sentiments, and triumphantly 
exposes them. Whilst flourishing away in this manner, his 
superficial reader thinks he sees ‘orthodoxy bending under 
his manly blows, and crumbling under his victorious feet, 

These severe and heavy charges, the following quotations 
will fully substantiate. 

In page 86, he declaims thus: ‘‘ How can men bear to © 

~ hear this glorious and holy Being blasphemed, and to 
‘shave their own sacred feelings insulted, by being told, 
<¢that mankind were created, only to be plunged into the 
«abyss of hell, to wallow in lakes of inextinguishable ie 
‘¢ and writhe in ever-during torments ?”’ 

But in the name of candour and common sense, where 
did Dr. B. ever hear such blasphemy ? No wueEre !— 
Who preaches such blasphemy ? Nozopy !—If the mem- 
bers of the first Presbyterian congregation in Belfast believe 
such rhapsodies, they must be extremely credulous indeed— 
they must regard their fellow Christians, not as men, but as 
monsters. « 

In-the same licentious strain of invective, he proceeds 
thus: (Appendix, p. 313.) 
~ All these feelings may be indulged with enthusiasm, in 
‘the good sense of that word, without beingshocked by cruel 

3 


26 


‘Cand unrelenting decrees, an unjust and tyrannical saeri- 
“ fice, the ruin of human nature, and the eternal torments 
“of mankind, without regard to principle or conduct.” 

To say nothing of the blasphemous epithets, cruel, unre- 
lenting, unjust, and tyrannical, applied to the decrees of 
God, and the atonement of his Son ; who ever believed in 
<<‘ the eternal torments of mankind, without regard to. prin- 
«<eiple or conduct?’ Who ever taught that monstrous 
doctrine 2? Nozsopy.—No Jew, no Heathen, no Mahome- 
tan, no Christian, of any denomination, ever taught it, or 
ever believed it! It is an insult on Christianity, and an out- 
rage on common sense, ee 

Another extraordinary specimen of invective against error 
which no where exists, is exhibited in the Doctor’s second 
germon on the atonement, (page 244. ae 

« Beside the controverted doctrines which. have already 
passed under review, there is one detestable opinion, 
*¢ which has been hitherto overlooked as unworthy of dis- 
‘«scussion. ‘There are, at this day, and in these countries, 
“a multitude of wretched and ignorant enthusiasts, whose 
© pernicious fanaticism engages them to delight in the pre- 
«‘valence of vice. Considering the conversion of every in- 
‘¢ dividual sinner as a miraculous and instantaneous Gpera- 
‘¢ tion of the holy spirit, they glory in their rapid progress 
‘¢ towards the extremes of desperate wickedness, imagining 

“that every step brings them nearer to the period of their 


“conversion, and makes them fitter objects for the grace of 


“God. The profligate votary of fanaticism rejoices in the 
‘indulgence of his most criminal passions, and in the in- 
‘‘ creasing depravity of his heart, looking forward to his. in- 
‘voluntary, and indeed imaginary conversion. ‘The fanatic, 


«¢ who has already undergone this wonderful operation, ex- _ 


‘* presses his satisfaction at the depravity of his neighbour, 


‘‘as the surest presage of an approaching restoration; while, | 


‘¢ with respect to himself, he indulges his basest and most 
“¢ pernicious propensities, under a persuasion that he can 
‘«‘ never fall from his state of grace ; and throws up. the 
‘¢ reins to his licentious passions, lest any attempt at moral 
‘¢ virtue should seem to question the efficacy, or control the 
‘< progress of that heavenly guide, who has condescended 
‘:to undertake the government of his soul. He supplicates 


‘‘ the pardon of God for every instance of reliance onthe © 


«* practice of virtue for divine mercy or favour, of which he 


a Ste 


27 


may have been guilty, and continues to sin that grace 
‘¢may abound.” a 
But, in the name of wonder—Who entertains that ** de- 
testable opinion,” which the Doctor here describes 2. Who 
is infected with that “dire superstition,” which he here 
exposes? Where is that multitude of wretched and igno- 
rant enthusiasts, which he here denounces ’—He assures 
us, that these enthusiasts exist at this day, and in these 
countries. With great respect, I call upon him to point 
them out. Till this be done, I shall feel myself justified in 
regarding the whole as a _fiction—burlesque on rcligion— 
satire on the age and country in which I live. 
_ From these vague defamatory invectives, let us now-turn 
our attention to more particular misrepresentations and 
calumnies. i 
_ A principal object of attack is Calvin.* That great re- 
former, he assures us, was a Supralapsarian. But this is 
not true. ‘That Calvin was a Sublapsarian, all his works 
prove. Those who doubt may consult his book on Predes- 
_tination, page 978 ; his Institutes, book iii. chap. 23. sec. 
3; and his commentary on Rom. ix. 21. ‘* Hath not the 
** potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make 
~*- one vessel. unto honour, and another unto dishonour.”’ 
Supralapsarians say, that the lump mentioned in this text 
means the lump of created existence; but Sublapsarians 
maintain that it means the lump of fallen nature. This 
is Calvin’s opinion ; and it proves that the Doctor’s charge 
of Supralapsarianism is groundless. 

Equally groundless is the assertion, that Calvin said, “1 
confess that this is a horrible decree.’? The word + hor- 
rible,”’ is a mistranslation. The Latin word ‘ horribile,” 
has various significations. One of them is—awful. In 
this acceptation it was used by Calvin. Js it-not uncandid 
—is it not absurd—to suppose, that Calvin used the word 
iN a sense, contrary to his own acknowledged principles ?— 
But Calvin must be made “ an offender for a word.” 
Every word, in which there is the slightest ambiguity, must 


 * £¢Calumny,” says Diderot, “‘ vanishes at the death of an obscure 
man; buatat the urn of the illustiious she iserernally busy; raking his 
Ashes with a poniard, even ages after death.” Never was this obser 
vation more strikingly verified than in the case of Calvin, 


% 


28 


be put to the rack, and a meaning extorted from it, which 
the venerable reformer never contemplated.* 
. Another gross misrepresentation of Calvin, we find in 
the Appendix, p. 307. It stands thus—‘« Calvin denies 
‘‘that there is any difference between preterition and re- 
‘« probation. Quos Deus preterit reprobat.”” Now, Calvin 
denies no such thing; and the English reader will be as- 
tonished to hear, that the Latin quotation proves no such 
thing. The literal meaning of it is this: Whom God passes 
by he reprobates. . siikod f 
“Now, if Calvin’s assertion, “‘ Whom God passes by he 
‘< reprobates,”’ prove that there is no difference between 
preterition and reprobation ; then the Apostle’s assertion, 
<< Whom the Lord loves he chastens,’’ equally proves, that 
there is no difference between love and chastisement. The 
eases are exactly parallel. The absurdity in both is the 
same. The person who would draw either the one infer- 
ence or the other, must either betray his ignorance or dis- 
honesty. With equal truth and justice, Dr. B. might charge 
the Apostle Paul with denying, that there is any difference 
between foreknowledge, predestination, calling, Justifica- 
tion and glorification. ‘* Whom he did foreknow, (Rom. 
« viii. 29.) he also did predestinate.” Therefore, there is 
no difference between foreknowledge and _ predestination 
» “Whom he did predestinate them he also called.” 
‘Therefore there is no difference between predestination and 
calling, €oc. . Such is Dr. B.’s logic! Al 
If in the preceding quotation the Dr. has deceived the 
English reader, the deception is still more flagrant in his 
statement of the articles of the Synod of Dort. The pre- 
tended articles given by Dr. B. (Appendix, p. 305,) occupy 
only half a page; the real articles would fill a dozen of 
pages. The real articles will be found in Scott’s Remarks 
‘on the Refutation of Calvinism. They are a most inte- 
resting document, written with great caution and judgment, 
but too long for insertion. The articles given by Dr. B. are 
a most shameful misrepresentation of the Synod’s doctrines. 


%* Calvin’s “horribile decretum,” has met with na mercy.—It has 
‘been attacked a thousand times. Bishop Tomline, Bishop Mant, Dr. 
“Millar, Ur. Graves, and almost every writer against Calvinism, assail 
it. How weak must their cause be, when, in defence of it, they ara 
obliged to wield such weapons. 


29 


The first of them is no less than eighteen condensed into 
-one. In reference to it, I shall here quote the following 
appropriate observations of Scott. ; 
“These eighteen articles concerning predestination, are 
‘«cabbreviated by Dan. Tilenus, reported by Heylyn, and 
«< deliberately adopted by his Lordship, (Bishop Tomline,) 
“ in the following single article.” | 


\ 


OF PREDESTINATION. 


« That God, by an absolute decree, hath elected to sal- 
“ vation, a very small number of men, without any regard 
‘“‘to their faith and obedience whatsoever ; and secluded 
“from saving grace all the rest of mankind, and appointed 

“them by the same decree to eternal damnation, without 
.‘ any regard to their infidelity and impenitency.”’ 

«¢{ have long been aware,” says Scott, “ that there is ‘no 
« new thing under the sun ;’ and that ‘ speaking all manner 
«© of evil falsely,’ of the disciples of Christ, is no exception 
‘to this mule; and that misrepresenting and slandering 
«men called Calvinists, has been very general, ever since 
«‘ the term was invented: but I confess, | never before met 
«* with so gross, so barefaced, and inexcusable a misrepre- 
‘< sentation as this, in all my studies of modern controversy. 
«It can only be equalled by the false testimony borne 
“against Jesus and his apostles, as recorded in holy 
<< writ. But, is that cause likely to be in itself good, and 
* of God, which needs to be supported by so unhallowed 
“© weapons ?”’ 

That Scott’s remarks are by no means too severe, the 
following observations will clearly show. In the forged - 
article, on which Scott animadverts, and which is the same 
with that given by Dr. B. we are told, “ That God, by an 
‘‘absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a very small 
number of men.’’ In the genuine article it is, a certain 
number of men. In the forged article we are told, that the 
rest are appointed to eternal damnation, without any regard 
to their infidelity and impenitency. In the genuine article 
the Divines declare, «that the non-elect God hath passed 
«‘ by and decreed to leave in the common misery, into which 
‘they had, by their own fault, cast themselves, and at 
‘length, not only on account of their unbelief, but also of 
‘“qil their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish, to 
' «the manifestation of his own justice.” . ee 

3% 


30 


The forgery says, ‘¢ without any regard to their infidelity 
“and impenitency ;’’ .the true article says, “‘on account of 
“ their unbelief and all their other sins !’? 
_ The second of the spurious articles given by Dr. B. 
omits the following important statement of the true article. 
“« ‘This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect 
‘‘ sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and 
‘“‘ price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the 
‘* whole world.”’ 

The third spurious article given by Dr. B. is one tissue 
of forgery and falsehood. | 

It asserts, first, that ‘ by Adam’s fall his posterity lost 
‘« their free will;’’ the genuine article asserts no such thing. 
The spurious article asserts, ‘‘ that Adam’s posterity are 
‘‘ put to an unavoidable necessity to do or not to do, what- 
*« soever they do or do not, whether it be good or evil ;”’ 
the genuine article asserts no such thing., The spurious ar- 
ticle adds: ‘‘ being thereunto predestinated by the eternal: 
‘“‘ and effectual secret decree of God.”? The genuine arti- 
cle asserts no such thing. No Calvinistic article asserts, 
that mem are predestinated to sin by an effectual decree. 

I might thus go over all the spurious articles; but the re- 
marks made are sufficient to prove, that they are an infa- 
mous fabrication. 

Shameful as this forgery is, it appears, that others still 
more injurious were published by the enemies of Calvinism. 
Wor the truth of this charge I appeal to themselves—I ap- 
pealto a late celebrated Anti-Calvinistic writer, the Lord 
Bishop of Lincoln. His words are these: ‘This is the 
‘* shortest, and withal the most favourable summary, which 
‘: [have hitherto met with, of the conclusions of this Sy- 
nod; that which was drawn up by the Remonstrants:in 
‘* their antidotum being much more large, and comprehend- 
‘““ ing many things by way of inference, which are not posi- 
‘« tively expressed in the words themselves,”’ 

From this declaration of his Lordship it appears, that 
the summary, or rather forgery, on which we have been ani- 
madverting, is not the worst—that the antidotum was still 
more injurious. 

i would ask in the words of Scott. ‘* Would not the 
“« very,articles published by the Synod itself, being produ- 
‘“* ced or commented on, have been far more like a fair and 
‘«« equitable conduct toward it, than any abbreviation or an- 
‘« tidotum, drawn up by its avowed opponents? TI trust 


7 


3t 


« such would have been the conduct of most Calvinists, itt 
« recording the proceedings of an Anti-Calvinistic Synod : 
“‘ but it seems, Calvinists are exceptions to all rules, and 
«¢ have no right to expect fair and equitable treatment from 
<¢ other men.”’ it OR ae 

If Tilenus, Heylyn, and the Bishop of Lincoln deserve 
such censure—and no candid reader will deny that they 
_do—how much more reprehensible is the conduct of Dr. 
B.? The articles recorded by the Doctor were acknow- 
ledged by Tilenus, Heylyn, and the Bishop, to be only. an 
abbreviation; but Dr. B. makes no such acknowledgment. 
He inserts them as the real and genuine articles of the Sy- 
nod of Dort! Scott exposed the fraud: Scott detected the 
forgery : and, after all, Dr. B. comes forward, and endeav- 
ours to palm it on the world, as the genuine doctrine of that 
celebrated Synod! 
Having witnessed the Doctor’s treatment of the Synod 
of Dort, let us now see how he treats the Westminster As- 
sembly. To misrepresent their confession, being a book 
in general circulation, one would suppose somewhat hazard- 
ous. The Doctor, however, has made the experiment 
on the third, fourth, and fifth sections of the third chapter. 

In P. 172, he exhibits the following mutilated, transposed, 
and scandalously garbied account of them. 

«¢ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, 
- & gome men and angels are foreordained to everlasting 
«¢ death, and others to everlasting life, without any foresight 
‘* of faith or good works, or perseverance in either ; or any 
‘«‘ other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes, 
‘«‘ moving him thereunto.” ale Se 

By thus garbling and transposing, the Doctor succeeds 
in creating an ambiguity. - He then avails himself of the 
ambiguity which himself has produced, and palms upon the 
Westminster Divines a sentiment which they never entertain- 
ed nor published. Page-174, he writes thus: ‘‘He 
«© (Christ) proclaims, that whoever believeth on him shail 
“< not perish, but have everlasting life—but here we learn, 
«« that the smallest number have been ordained to life, and 
«« the greater part to endless perdition, without any fore- 
«‘ sight of their faith or perseverance.’? And again (P. 
181)—‘ The majority of Christians are foreordained to 
“< everlasting death, without any foresight of faith and good 
‘¢ works.’’ | 
_ In these quotations, he makes the Divines assert, what 


32 


they have no where asserted—* that some men and angels 
“are foreordained to everlasting death, without any fore- 
*< sight of faith or good works.’”? The Divines were inca- 
pable of such an assertion—they were incapable of writing 
such nonsense—nonsense, which the Doctor again and 
again palms upon them. They speak of the foreseen faith 
and good works of those who are seved.—This is intelligis 
ble—but they never speak, nor seem to speak, of the fore- 
seen faith and good works of those who perish; of those 
who never believe nor do good works.—This would be— 
SHEER NONSENSE. | 

To prefer so absurd a charge against the Westminster 
Divines—a charge, to justify which, there is not in all their 
works one single syllable—is certainly a bold experiment 
on the credulity of the present age. ) 

But again: The Westminster Divines no where assert, 
that the greater part of men are ordained to perdition. 
They no where assert, that the majority of Christians are 
foreordained to everlasting death. These are not the doc- 
trines of the Confession of Faith; but the calumnies of Dr. 
Bruce.* 


Tc BE GT 7 om a UNC 

* Some years ago,an anonymous writer, subscribing himself “ A 
REVEREND PRESBYTERIAN,” attacked the Westminster Confession 
of Faith by misrepresentation. I endeavoured to defend, and to ad- 
minister such chastisement, as I hoped would deter others from such a 
mode of attack. In this hope I soon found myself most sadly disap- 
pointed. My. M‘Affee, then schoolinaster at White Abbey, with a har- 
dihuod seldom equalled, set to work, and wrote a pamphlet fraught 
with misrepresentations, misstatements, and forgeries. Of thesel shall 
here exhibit a specimen. At the bottom of the 23d Page, we find the 
following bold and presumptuous appeal to the Westminster Confes- 
sion.—** If,” says Mr. M‘Affee, “¢ the doctrine contained in the third 
“ chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith be true, God has not 
“ only chosen a certain number to everlasting life; but he has also pre- 
*¢ destined the remaining party to everlasting condemnation, to the 
© praise and glory of his grace.” What! Predestinate men to con- 
demnation “lo the praise and glory of his grace!’ Yes, indeed ! 
This doctrine—this most absurd and blasphemous doctrine—is forged 
by Mr, M‘Affee, palmed on the Westminster Divines, recorded in dif- 
ferent parts of his pamphlet, and the forgery stamped current by Mr. 
Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine!!! 

Again (Page 25th), he writes thus—“ Take in plain terms the Cal- 
‘* vinistic answer: God, from all eternity, doomed all those who will 
** perish at the last, without any foresight of faith or works to that 
“end.” This ridiculous calumny, being exactly the same with that of 
Dr. B., requires no additional exposure 1 would only say in pallia- 
tion, that I foadly hope these writers are not the inventors, but only the 
retatlers of the calumny. 


33 


‘ 
- After misrepresenting the Westminster Divines and Sy- 
. -nod of Dort—after laying to the charge of those venerable 
assemblies “‘ things which they knew not,” and imputing to 
them doctrines, the very reverse of those which they taught 
—after treating fellow Christians so unjustly and injuri- 
ously, we will feel less surprise to find the learned Doctor 
misrepresenting Jews, Heathens, and Mahometans—prefer- 
ring against them groundless accusations. ‘“ We know, 
*« too,” says the Doctor (P. 280), “ that men were growing 
*¢ more and more depraved, and that, except through the 
s‘ medium of the Christian religion, not even the faintest 
* effort has ever yet been made to reclaim the world.”’ 
- What! Were not efforts made under the patriarchal! 
age? Were no efforts made under the legal dispensation ? 
‘Did even the Heathens make no efforts? Does not every 
smatterer in history know, that thousands of efforts were 


In reply to the question,~Will all mankind be saved in the day of 
judgment?) Mr. M‘AZee makes. the Calvinist absurdly reply, No.5 
<¢ because Christ did not die for all: he died only for the elect.” How 
different is this forged answer from the following genuine Calvinisiie 
reply—** All mankind will not be saved at the day of judgment ; for 
“ many of them live and die unbelievers, impenilent, and wicked!” 

Mr. M‘Affee charges me with granting, ‘that there is no such text in 
‘6 the bible, as proves that God entered into covenant with Adam, as 
66 the representative of his posterity’—-I have granted NO SUCH 
THING. ; : 
_ He charges me with saying, ‘* that omniscience signifies the actual 
‘ knowledge of all things, that possibly can be known”—lI have said 
NO SUCH THING. 4 

He says, I “ seem to triumph-in asserting, that Dr. Clarke denies the 
& foreknowledge of God”—I have asserted NO SUCH THING. 

He again affirms, that I “ assert, without any qualification, that the 
& Doctor denies the foreknowledge of the deity”—I again affirm, that I 
have asserted NO SUCH THING, either with qualification, or without 
qualification. ey i eae 

When did I say these things? Never.—Where have I made such 
assertions? No WHERE. 

‘These and similar misrepresentations, misstatements and forgeries, 
are doubtless believed by the opponents of Calvinism. The editor of 
the Imperial Magazine has stamped them current. Were this not the 
case—and were it not that lam anxious to detact fraud, and prevent 
deception, I would have suffered them to pass without notice, leaving 
“them to sink into merited oblivion. é 

Mr. M‘Affee gives his pamphlet the modest title of—“ A RaTIonAL 
AND SCRIPTURAL INVESTIGATION”—and, with characteristic humil- 
ity, he declares, that * reason, founded on revelation, always makes_a, 
‘noble attack.”—He seems, however, unfortunately, to have forgottens 
‘that misrepresentations, misstatements, and forgeries, always make 4 
‘DISGRACEFUL ATTACK, | 


34 


made to reclaim the world ?. Yes, efforts were made by 
patriarchs, priests and prophets ; by poets and politicians ; 
by orators and philosophers. Equaily groundless and un- 
just is the accusation, which the Doctor “prebers’ against the 
man who has not read his bible, (P. 6.)— As to the con- 
‘«* duct of providence, and the history of mankind, he has 
** not a notion of them beyond the period of his own. ex- 
“ istence.—So far is this accusation from being true, that 
many of those, who never read the bible, have nevertheless 
been the authors of histories—histories of providence— 
histories of mankind—histories extending backward cen- 
turies before their existence. — 

In describing the man eho has not ea his Hiblene our 
eahor adds—‘‘and if he be so completely enveloped in 
_* darkness concerning this life, he must be totally destitute 
“ of any conception of a life to come.’” What! All who 
have not read the bible completely Bivelontal in darkness 
concerning this lite! How contrary to fact is such an as- 
sertion !—Again, are such characters ** totally destitute of 
“any conception of a life tocome?”’ Let Socrates and 
Plato—Let . Heathens in general—let Mahometans—let 
blind or anedugated Christians answer the question. All 
these will contratict the Doctor, With one voice they will 
answer—No. 

These inisrepresentations, | firmly believe, are not volun- 
tary. They arise rather from confusion of ideas, than from. 
any worse principle. That this is the most correct, as well 
as the most dhntnablé conclusion, the following quotations 
clearly prove :_ 

In Page 6th, he says, “ The intiid of the first’ —the man 
who has not read his bible—* is a perfect vacuum as to 
—* sniritual qualities and endowments ; or, if nota vacuum, 
‘itis achaos. Except some vague instinctive principle, 
** or rather feeling of moral obligation, and some hearsay 
‘¢ notion of God, he is a stranger to morals and piety.” 
How inconsistent is all this with what he asserts, P. 64. 
«s The moral maxims which he (Christ) sanctioned with his 
“< authority, were no new discoveries. ‘The leading princi- 
** ples of Christian morality are to be found—in the wri- 
“ tings of Heathen Philosophers.” 

Again, ‘Pages 81 and 82, the Doctor writes thus : 

*¢ As soon as man was capable. of reflecting on his own 
** nature and situation. he must have— perceived, that there — 
‘1s a God, some Being superior to I santa and his fellow 


35 


“mortals. When he looked abroad into the world, he 
“must have been satisfied, that the magnificence, order, 
“and beauty of the universe were the effects of consum- 
mate wisdom and power. When he surveyed the living 
* creatures around bim, and contemplated the provision 
made for their subsistence and comfort; he must have 
been sensible that this superior Being is bountiful and 
kind. As his experience and reflecting powers increased, 
his conviction of these truths would be strengthened ; 
till he acquired the idea of an invisible power, supremely 
mighty, benevolent and wise. A more comprehensive 
view of the the creation might naturally lead to a belief, 
that the whole was the production of one Being, assisted, 
‘perhaps, by subordinate agents. This last idea unhap- 
pily took such strong possession of the minds of men, as 
to give rise to the various systems of idolatry, which pre- 
vailed throughout the Heathen world, and still maintains 
its ground over a large portion of the globe. From 
these errors, the Jewish nation alone was exempted ;* 
and that only by a divine revelation. By such observa- 
tions and reflections, the mind of man might have at- 
tained a conception of the Divine Being, and of our 
relation and duties to Him, sufficiently sublime and edi- 
fying ; and there are not wanting instances of men, who 
so far availed themselves of the light of nature, as, in a 
‘* great degree, to fulfil these expectations.” 
_ Who sees not the inconsistency of such sentiments? The 
man who has never read the bible, ‘‘ except some vague 
“instinctive principle, or rather feeling of moral obligation, 
‘is a stranger to morals;’? and yet he may read ‘the 
“ leading principles of Christian morality in the writings of 
‘“‘ the Heathen Philosophers !—He has only ‘‘ hearsay no- 
*« tions of God ;” and yet, by reflecting on himself, and 
contemplating other creatures, he might “ attain a concep- 
** tion of the Divine Being, and of our relation and duties 
‘« to Him, sufficiently sublime and edifying ”’ 
Such inconsistent and contradictory statements induce 
me to believe that the Doctor’s misrepresentations fre- 
quently arise from an inadvertent and incoherent mode of 


&s 


& 
&“ 


sé 


Taree Whe BAe OC CR re a eee ne 


* So far were the Jews from being exempted from the errors of idole 
_ atry—as Dr. B. erroneously states—that God gave them up to. wor- 
® ship the host of Heaven!” 


/ 36 


thinking. This circumstance, however, does not render 
them harmless, and, of course, it neither supersedes my 
duty to point them out, nor the reader’s duty to beware of 
them. | nae Seg 
I shall say no more at present on this painful subject. I 
would only caution my readers—Beware of quotations ; 
beware of misrepresentations ; beware of forgeries. * Be 
not deceived !”’ 


OBJECTION IV. 


_ I have another objection against the Doctor’s mode of 
managing the controversy. He blends the sentiments of 
Antinomians, and other enthusiasts, with those of Calvin- 

ists. This is a piece of generalship unworthy of a learned - 
Christian divine. The Antinomian sentiments, of Crisp, 

Brierly, Hawker, &c.—and the raptures and rhapsodies of 
other enthusiasts, are held in as great abhorrence by Cal- 

vinists, as by any Socinians or Arians in the world. .Were ~ 
I to blend the sentiments of Socinians and, Arians, and 
confound all distinctions between them, it is probable Dr, 
B. would conceive himself injured. As he would that Cal- 
yinists should do unto him, the learned Doctor should do 
also the same. 


OBJECTION V. 


Dr. Bruce’s attack on Calvinism is liable to another 
strong objection. He has not studied the system he op- 
poses. ‘To show that this objection is well founded, and 
the censure it conveys just, I shall only quote two passages, 
one from his sermons, and the other from his Being and 
‘Attributes. In his sermons (p. 202) he writes thus: 

‘<< | ask, then, in the first place, did this decree originate 
« before or after the fall? ‘This is a subject of controversy 
« with Predestinarians themselves, who are accordingly 
« divided between Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians. ” 

In this passage the Doctor has betrayed his ignorance of 
the Calvinistic system. <‘‘ Did this decree originate before 
or after the fall?”’ What decree? No decree is mentioned 
in the preceding context. Without any previous notice, 
without any visible connexion, he leaps from original sin to 
the decrees of God.* From the subsequent contest, how- 


SSNPS GUN Sir Kes Sc SO amen cen 3h I Te 


* The instance noticed above, is not the only one calculated to show 
that Dr. B. is a writer extremely confused and incoherent; and that, 


37 


ever, it appears that by “‘ this decree,” the Doctor intended 
the decree of God that man should fall. . a 
When the Doctor, therefore, asks the question,—Did 
this decree originate before, or after the fall? what does he 
mean? He means—noruimne. The question is absurd. 
The import of it is this: Did the decree, that man should 
fall, originate before or after he fell? On the absurdity of 
this question I need make no comment. Surely no Cal- 
vinist was ever so foolish as to maintain that the decree, 
that man should fall, originated after he had actually fallen! 
- But waiving this gross absurdity, I ask, was it ever a sub- 
ject of controversy with Predestinarians, whether the decree 


of the fall, or any other decree, “* originated before, or after 


the fall?” Never. Were Sublapsarians and Supralapsa- 
rians divided on this subject? Tuey were not. Did any 


‘Calvinist ever maintain, that any decree of God originated 


after the fall? No Calvinist ever maintained so gross an 
absurdity. Were the Deity to form any purpose in time, 


of course, it is exceedingly difficult to follow or refute him. Relatives, 
without antecedents, occur in almost every page. 1 shall here exhibit 
a few out of many.—Page 83. ‘* No portion of mankind has, at any 
* time, been wholly ignorant of this truth.” ‘What truth ?— Page 62. 
“ These subjects must comprise an infinity of facts and speculations.” 
What subjects:—* The knowledge of such truths is peculiar to the 
“ Supreme Being.” What truths ?—Page 69. Yet the existence of 
* these qualities in the divine nature, is of essential importance.” 
What qualities ?—‘ Those who cannot.” Those what?—Page 79, 
“ What do all these pretensions avail?” &c. What pretensions ?— 
Page 108. ** The word has often this signification,” &c. What word? 
what signification ?—Page 113. “From the poverty of language, in 
this nespect,’’ &c. In what respect?—Page 127. ‘+ Now, if the word 
‘6 create is necessarily understood in this sense.” What sense ?>—“ But 
“ this I do not conceive to be the apostle’s meaning,” &c. What is not 
his meaning ?—Page 152. “ This sympathy with human feelings,” &c. 
What sympathy ‘—Page 169. ‘+ Now, if we can suppose it possible, 
‘that any good end may be answered by such injunctions,” &c. What 
injunctions ‘—Page 179. ‘ Who are little inclined to those foolish 
“* questions, strifes of words, and perverse disputings.” What foolish: 
questions? what strifes of words? what perverse disputings ?—Page 
180. “That body of people—whom he thus foreknew,” &c. How 
foreknew ?—‘‘ For the doctrine is founded on foreknowledge.” What 
doctrine ?—Page 195. “ The word is explained in the next clause,” 
&c. What word?’—‘ In Hebrew the simple word means fo be a sin- 
ner.” What simple word ?—‘¢In another form of the verb,” &c. What. 
verb ?—These instances, out of many, show that the Doctor thinks, 
and of course writes, incoherently. They show, that it is easy to mis- 
take his meaning, but difficult, if not impossible, to refute all his de- 
_tached, disjointed, and erroneous sentiments. ae 


4 


& 


38 


which he had not formed from eternity, he would be muta- 
ble, liable to change, and ‘ shadow of turning !?? 

All Calvinists universally maintain, and have always 
maintained, that all the decrees of God are eternal.- ‘Their 
children. as soon as they are capable of lisping their cate- 
chism, know that the decrees of God are his “eternal pur- 
pose.’ ‘The eternity of the divine decrees was never con- 
troverted, either by Sublapsarians or Supralapsarians. ‘The 
subject of their controversy was not the date, but the object 
of God’s decree of predestination. The Supralapsarians 
maintained, that the object of this decree was men consi- 


dered merely as creatures; but the Subiapsarians contend- — 


ed that the decree of predestination contemplated men, not. 
merely as creatures, but as falien creatures. bein 
* Would not Dr. B. have displayed more wisdom by stu- 
dying the disputes between Sublapsarians and Supralapsa- 
rians, before he pretended to explain them? What! Ex- 
plain what he did not understand ! teach what he had never 
learned! oppose opinions which he had never studied ! 
That our author, in attacking Calvinism, is opposing @ 
system which he has not studied, and which he does not 
understand, the following extracts from his «« Being and 
Attributes” farther evince. In page 52, speaking of the 
free agency+of the Deity, he writes thus: : 


«¢ This freedom must extend to what has been called the | 
«< liberty of indifference. It is thought by some, that ne 


.< being ean act, except there be a motive for acting in one 
/¢ manner rather than another; and that when all modes of 
‘‘ acting are indifferent, there can be no action. If this 
‘< were the case, the universe could never have been cre- 
«© ated: for it is impossible to imagine, that there could be 
‘‘ any reason for creating it in one part of vacant space, or 
‘¢ at one period in eternity, rather than another. A suffi- 
‘¢ cient motive for acting may therefore exist, though there 
‘be none for preferring one particular mode to every 
«< other. It is so far from being foolish, in this case, to act 
‘s without a motive, that it would be unspeakable folly to 
‘¢ suppose that the Deity would refrain from acting on such 
‘¢a notion. The two equal bundles of hay are a slander 
‘< even on the stupidity of the ass. ‘These, and many other 
‘¢ notions, originate in our confounding spirit with matter, 
‘ thought with motion, and motives with impulse.” Maun 

After the Doctor has written about two pages more, he 
completely forgets all this, and writes as follows: - . 


= 


ma 65. oh 
= 


aS 


a ao 


aS EN? 


39 


_ If we imagine that the existence of two perfect beings 
ig even conceivable, a little consideration will convince 
“us, that, in fact, we are only thinking twice of the same 
“© thing. Their omnipotence is exercised in the same place, 
‘¢ at the same time; and is directed by infallible wisdom, 
“ and consummate goodness. It must, therefore, be always 
‘* performing the same acts: for the perfection of wisdom 
*¢ will not admit of their thinking or acting differently ; the 
<< wisest determination must be preferred’by both. Even | 
“* two men, who are perfect in any demonstrative science, 
‘© cannot possibly differ. Their conclusions on that subject 
“ must infallibly correspond. ‘This results from the perfec- 
‘* tion of their knowledge in that science ; and, therefore, 
“if two perfect beings existed, their knowledge and 
*« thoughts on every subject must be the same. Jor the 
«* same reason, their wills, intentions and actions will co- 
-<* incide.”’ fue v 
In the former of these extracts, our learned author 
- strongly asserts the doctrine of free will; in the latter, he 
as firmly maintains the doctrine of necessity. In the for- 
mer, a liberty of indifference is taught ; in the latter, the 
doctrine of moral necessity is asserted. In the former, Ar- 
minianism is taught; in the latter, the highest Calvinism. 
If the two Supreme Beings, supposed by the Doctor, are 
both possessed of a liberty of indifference—why must their 
omnipotence be exercised in the same place, and at the 
same time? Might not the one exert his omnipotence in 
one part of space, and at one period in eternity, and the 
other in a different department, and at a different period ? 
If they be possessed of a liberty of indifference, why must 
they always think alike, and act alike? Why may they not 
think differently, and act differently ? If they cannot think 
differently, will differently, and act differently, they cannot 
be possessed of a liberty of indifference—they must be Ne- 
-cessarians. If their wills, intentions and actions must co- 
incide, then they are no longer Libertarians ; they must be 
the subjects of moral necessity. Excellent divinity !—Sound 
doctrine !—not only Calvinism, but the highest Calvinism !* 


~ 


* From the heights of Calvinism the Doctor descends to the depths of 
Socinianism. Page 24, he writes thus: “ While others waste their 
*¢ time in disputing about the nature, person, and office of Christ, it is 
*S enough for the humble disciple to be assured that he was invested 
66 with divine authority, and that he made known the nature and the ~ 


40 

—So high, that some very judicious: Calvinists have oppos- 
ed it. It is one of those points on which the celebrated 
Witherspoon opposed his illustrious predecessor, President 
Edwards. I am happy, however, in this instance, to find 
Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist, and Dr. B., the Arian, 
going hand in hand in the support of truth. Dr. B. has 
proved clearly, that the Deity himself is not possessed of a 
liberty of indifference. But if the Deity be not possessed 
of such a liberty, how can man be possessed of it? ‘To say 
that God is not possessed of a liberty.of indifference, but 
that man is possessed of it, would be blasphemy ; it would 
be to say that man has more liberty than bis Maker !—the 
creature than the Creator! Such is the blasphemous con- 
clusion, to which every man must be reduced, who main- 
tains the doctrine of a liberty of indifference. Should any 
continue to defend that. doctrine, I would refer them to the 
preceding reasoning of Dr. B., which, in my opinion, is 
altogether unanswerable. I would say to them, read Dr. 
B., and become Calvinists. | 

_ Not only the reasoning, but even the testimony of Dr. B. 
in favour of Calvinism, ought to have great weight and in- 
fluence. It is the testimony of an enemy. It is the testi- 
mony of common sense, bursting the barriers of an-hereditary 
creed, and forcing its way through the deep-rooted preju- 


dices of an early education. That both God and man are - 


possessed of a liberty of indifference, is a tenet, which the 
Doctor had received by tradition from his fathers. It con- 
stitutes an important part of that hereditary creed, handed 
down by his boasted predecessors, ‘« Halliday and his grand- 
‘ father, Drennan and Brown, Mackay and Crombie.” 
But that the Deity possesses no such liberty, and, of course; 
that man possesses no such liberty, is the dictates of the 
Doctor’s own common sense: it is the dictate of truth ; 
and a corner-stone of the Calvinistic system.: 


&¢ will of God; that he pointed out the way to life eternal, and evinced 
‘the truth of that doctrine by his resurrection from the dead, and 
66 ascension into heaven, where he ever liveth to make intercession for 
us, and whence he shall come to judge both the living and the dead.” 
This is a Socinian creed, and Dr. B. pronounces it quite sufficient !— 
At one time a professed Arian—now a high Calvinist—again a Soci- 
nian —and all this in that same volume of sermons, which he modestly 
pronounces, * consistent with itself and the gospel 1”? bo begy abi ip 
_ nil fuit unquam : 
9) i yf 


' Sic impar sibi! 


A 


= j 41 


The extract given above proves two things: first, it 
proves the truth of Calvinism ; and secondly it proves, that 
Dr. B. does not understand the system he has. undertaken 

to oppose. If he really understood it, there is reason to 
believe, that he would not oppose it. As his opposition 
arises from ignorance, I would fervently pray for him and 
all such, ‘‘ Father, forgive them; for they know not what 
“* they do.”’ - 


OBJECTION VI. _ 


_ Anti-trinitarians, in their attempts to subvert what I re- 
gard as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, first 
‘waged war with creeds and confessions, and loudly vociferat- 
ed Chillingworth’s maxim,. «‘ The Bible, the Bible is the 
‘religion of Protestants.”? But now, finding that their 
principles cannot be defended on the broad basis of divine 
revelation, they retreat to the citadel of the four gospels. 
Nor are they willing to appeal to these as the standard of 
doctrine, but only to a few verses, which are found written. 
in them all. The testimony of three evangelists, according 
to Dr. Bruce, is not sufficient to establish any important 
truth !*—Could any thing but conscious weakness account 
for such timidity and tergiversation ? 6 

_ Our learned author betrays the same weakness and timi- 
dity, by deprecating argument and verbal criticism. He 
criticises, and then condemns an appeal to criticism. He 
argues, and then condemns an appeal to argument. Is not 
this to sound a retreat? Is it not to abandon that field, to 
which he had rashly challenged his opponents? The honest 
Quaker, when pressed with an argument which he could 
not answer, very piously exclaimed, ‘* The Lord rebuke 
“« thee, O Argument! the Lord rebuke thee!”’ 


OBJECTION VIL. 


_ Finally: I object to Dr. Bruce’s sermons on the study of 
the Bible, because they have a chilling and benumbing ten- 
dency. By sinking the greater part of the sacred volume 
into comparative insignificance, they have .a tendency to 
lessen men’s attachment to it, and, of course, to draw them 

off from the reading and perusal of it. By sinking divine’ 
truth in our esteem, they are calculated to repress a spirit 


* The truth of those charges wall appear in the subsequent chapter. 
4 


4 


42 


of inquiry, and to arrest the’ progress of religious knowledge. 


But on this objection I shall not insist, as the force of it 
will appear in the ensuing ch apter, to which I now proceed. 


CHAPTER II. 


Dr. Bruce’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures repelled. ise 


» Havine in the preceding chapter stated my objections 
to the Doctor’s mode of managing the controversy, I come 
now to the defence of those doctrines, which, in his ser- 
mons on the study of the Bible, he has so boldly assailed. 
In «‘ contending for the faith once delivered to the saints;”’ 
it is sometimes necessary to defend one particular truth, and 
sometimes another. At present the attack is general. Our 
learned author, with an intrepidity altogether unparalleled; 
at least in this country, has attempted to raze the very foun- 
dations of the Christian system. He has attacked; not 
merely the doctrines of the Bible, but the Bisue rrsEur. 
That this charge, though awful in the extreme, is not unjust, 
the following quotations too clearly prove. =) 
Page 60—*«“ Respectfully and gratefully receive that va- 
sé riety of religious knowledge, which is communicated in 
“the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles ; but fix upon 
“ the words of Jesus as the standard of your faith, &c.”’ 
Page 49— It is evident, that we should collect the 
' 6¢ whole of the Christian doctrine from the words of Jesus, 
<¢ as recorded in the four Gospels.—For the knowledge of 
«« God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the terms of acceptance, 
<< and other doctrinal points, we should depend solely on 
‘“‘ the gospels,” pias r 
Page 87—*‘ We should interpret their (the Apostles) rea- 
‘¢ soning in.conformity with his precepts, not his precepts 
“< by their reasoning.” ‘it Rest 
Pp. 50—* But you are never to set up the authority of 
‘“< the disciples against that of their master; nor consider 
‘¢ their writings as the primary source of knowledge on doc- 
“ trinal questions, as is too often done. On the contrary, 
«you should form your opinions from the discourses of 


43 


_ Christ, on every branch of his religion, and consider thé 
« writings of the Apostles as comments upon them,”’ &c.: 


~.. P. 180—« Tf I can explain these (the 8th and 9th chap- 


‘¢ ters of the Romans), it will not be necessary to occupy 
‘* your time with any others. If we cannot interpret them 
<‘ conformably to our Saviour’s doctrine, we should rather 
«¢ abandon them as unintelligible, than prefer the lower au- 
‘* thority to the higher, and what we cannot understand to 
‘what we do.” 

_ P. 91.—* For the general purport of their writings (the 
*« sacred penmen’s writings) coincides with the declarations 
* of our Lord.” ; 

~~ P. 123—« Ts it not clear, that the authority of our Lord 
“* is paramount to every other ; and that ifany of his Apos- 
 tles differ from him, their authority must be set aside ? Is 
* it not absurd to suppose that they should; and most of 


~“¢ all, that any of them should contradict their master and 


*¢ one another, and even themselves.” 

P. 26—*< Being now well grounded and settled in the 
‘“* genuine doctrine of Christ, as delivered by himself in the 
*« Gospels, his* faithful followers: must take it for granted 
“that the chosen disciples of our Lord taught nothing in- 
‘consistent with it,* and that any obscurity in their wri- 
tings must be cleared up by referring to his own words. 
*« He will therefore expound those texts which are hard to 
** be understood by the plain doctrine of their master—the 
*« sincere and singleminded reader of the Bible will look to 
his Saviour as his polar star, and, in perusing the Epistles 
*¢ will dwell and rely on those points of edification in which 
** the Apostles and their master coincide.” sf 

~ P. 19—* He will, however, distinguish the history from 

“‘ the divine communication. He will see, that it has been 
** composed by fallible men, but under such direction and 
an superintendence, that though left to themselves, as to pe- 
 culiarities of style, the narration of ordinary facts, and the 


ey ll 


* Tf we must take it for granted that “ the chosen disciples of our 
“Lord taught nothing inconsistent with his doctrine”—-what does our 
‘author mean by telling us that the general purport of their writings 

coincide with the declarations of our Lord ;—that if any of his apostles 
differ from him, their authority must be set aside—and that we should 
dwell and rely on those points of edification, in which the apostles and 
their master coincide ?—I say, what does the Doctor mean? The most 
‘charitable answer is, he means=-NOTHING AT ALL. me 


& 


44 


tc insertion of occasional reflections, they hand down the 
« revelation itself, as it was actually made.” j 
In confirmation of these sentiments, he quotes with ap- 
probation (P. 297) the following sentence from Grotius— 
‘© Jt was not necessary that the histories (in scripture) 
‘© should be dictated by the Holy Spirit ; it was enough 
“‘ that the writers had a good memory.” 
Such is the humble rank, to which the inspired Apostles 
are degraded !—We must not depend upon them for any 
doctrine! Tne wuoxr of Christian doctrine we must re- 
ceive from our Saviour, and not from the apostles. On him 
we must depend souery for our knowledge of doctrines. 
The writings of the Apostles are only to be regarded—so 
far as doctrine is concerned—as ‘‘ comments’’ on the dis- 
courses of our Lord. Nay, the Apostles are to be regard- 
ed, if our author’s doctrine be true, not only inthe humble 
capacity of commentators; but—shall I utter the impiety ?— 
as BADCoMMENTATORS! Our learned author constantly re- 
presents the Redeemer’s doctrines as plain, but those of 
the Apostles as obscure. Of course, the Apostles must be 
bad commentators ; for their commentary is more obscure 
than the text! Instead of their commentary explaining 
out Saviour’s text, his text must explain their commentary ! 
«¢ We should interpret,’ says the Doctor, “ their reasoning 
_ « in conformity with his precepts, and not his precepts by 
‘< their reasoning |”? Now, if the reasonings of the Apos- 


tles do not assist us in the interpretation of our Saviour’s 


precepts, they must be useless commentaries indeed ; and 


the Apostles themselves silly commentators! Such is the 
impious, but inevitable conclusion. | 
Dr. Bruce maintains, that the authority of the Apostles 
is inferior to that of the Redeemer—that his authority is 
paramount—that they were fallible men, &c.—As men, the 
Apostles were fallible, [grant ; but as writers of the sacred 
volume, they were infallible. ‘The authority by which the 
whole Bible was. written is the same—THE AUTHORITY OF 
Gop. <All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
6 profitable.” —‘* Holy men of God spake as they were 
‘© moved by the Holy Ghost.” These declarations, 1 know, 
- refer to the Old Testament Scriptures ; but they are equal- 
ly applicable to the New. Jesus Christ is the author of all 
the scriptures ; both Old and New Testaments. It is on 
this account, that his name is called “ Tun Worp or Gop.” 
It wag the spirit of Christ, which dictated the Old Testa- 


” 


ment Scriptures. (1 Pet. i. 10, 11.) “Of which salvation 
*¢ the prophets have inquired, ‘and searched diligently, whe 
«prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 
“ Searching what, or what manner of time, the Sprrir oF 
<Cprist which was in them did signify, when it testified 
“‘ beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that 
*< should follow.”’—The same spirit of Jesus that inspired 
the Old Testament prophets, inspired also the New ‘Testa- 
ment writers. ‘The Redeemer, in the days of his flesh, had 
‘many things to say and to write,”’ which the disciples, at 
that period, could not bear. He, therefore, promised his 
Holy Spirit, to “teach them aLL THINGS ; and to lead 
“them into aun rrutn.’ Dr. B. asserts, that the author- 
ity of the’ Apostles is inferior to that of the Redeemer ; 
but the Apostle Paul asserts rae contrary. He asserts that 
they are’ the same. (Gal. i. i2.) «But £ certify you, 
“ brethren, that the gospel w hich was proached of me is not 
after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was 
«© JT taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.’? And 
to the emer e: he says, ‘* For f have received of the 
«¢ Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” The Reve-: 
lation of John the Divine claims the same high original. | 
~ It is expressly styled the “* Revelation of Jesus “Christ.°— 
The writer of it «was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day ;”” by 
the inspiration of that spirit he wrote seven letters to the 
seven churches in Asia ; and assures us, that the prophecies 


of Divine revelation are the “ testimony of Jesus.” (Rev. 
xix. 10,) “‘ For the testimony oe Jesus 1s the Spieto pill a 
“¢ phecy.”” 


Thus it appears, that the Retleowide; is the author of the 
whole sacred volume. To say, therefore, with Dr. B. that 
the authority of one part of scripture is inferior to that of 
another, is grossly absurd ; for they were all penned by the 
same authority. if the authority of the other parts of the 
sacred volume be ‘inferior. to that of the gospels, I ask, 
What is the difference ? There can be no difference but this, 
that the authority of the latter is divine, and that of the for- 
mer human—or, in other words—That the gospels are the 
word of God; but the rest of the scriptures the word of 
man !—If this is not Deism, it is something very like it.— 
The Deist, indeed, rejects the whole of the Bible, whilst 
Dr. B. retains, perhaps, one hundredth part of it! | 

Tam quite sensible, that our author sometimes speaks, 
not only of the sospels, but of the other scriptures, as if 


Bs 


46 


they were divinely inspired. His language, however, is so 


vague, ambiguous, and contradictory, that it is impossible | 


to ascertain his real sentiments. With great respect I call 
upon him to speak out. Either the other scriptures, as 
we'll as the gospels, are divinely inspired, or they are not. 
If he say that they are; then he contradicts his favourite 
sentiment— That they are of inferior authority. If he say 
that they are not divinely mspired ; then he rejects ninety- 
nine hundreths of the sacred volume, and wants only one 
Anndreh part of being a Deist! poem 
- The iruth is, that the Doctor’s principles appear to me 
quite subversive of the scriptures of truth. If his views 
be correct, I do not see that we can place any confidence 


whatever, in any part of the sacred oracles, not even in the 


four gospels. If I believed that the sacred penmen were 
left to themselves, even with regard to style and language, 
this very ‘circumstance would shake my confidence.* In 
prophecies, such as those of Ezekiel, Daniel, and. John the 
Divine ; and in other communications, which were above 
the comprehension of the writers, it is self-evident that not 
only the matter, but the language must have been inspired. 
And, even in the recording of those facts or doctrines, 
which were quite level to the understandings of the pen- 


men, I do not think it at allreasonable to suppose, that they 


were left to the use of their own language without any divine 


superintendence. I do not think it reasonable ; because I do 
not conceive that it would have been safe. _ Is it reasonable 


to suppose that illiterate fishermen, mechanics, &c. could 
accurately record either facts or doctrines? Would they 


be in no danger of blundering ?—of exhibiting to the world. 


erroneous views? Even men of learning frequently fail in 
giving a true picture of their own ideas. Even Doctor B. 
whose whole life has been principally employed in the study 
of languages—even the learned Doctor himself sometimes 
fails. He fails so far, as to publish doctrines which he does 
not believe, and to exhibit ideas which he never entertained 


—nay, he sometimes fails so far, that his language conveys 
no meaning at all. Does the Doctor believe, that the whole 


world are saved? Does he believe that the whole world, 
prior to the coming of Christ, were damned? Does he 
believe either of these contradictory doctrines? Surely 


* I mean, without divine superintendence, 


47 


not; and yet both are taught by our author, as we have 
seen in the preceding chapter. 
In p. 82, he speaks of the attributes of God resulting 
from the works of creation. Here he has undoubtedly 
- failed in communicating his ideas. He surely knows, that 
the works of God result from his attributes, and not his 
attributes from his works. 
~ That he sometimes writes, without any meaning at all, is 
evident from his second sermon, p. 36. ‘The principle, that 
the kingdom of God is within us, admits, he assures us, of 
a rational interpretation. << In its true sense,” says he, 
“it is the medium between a mystic and a polemic.” Such - 
is the Doctor’s ‘ rational interpretation!’ Now, if so cele- 
brated a linguist as the quondam principal of the Belfast 
Academy, through the improper use of language, teaches 
doctrines which he does not believe ; communicates ideas 
which he does not entertain ; and sometimes writes with- 
out any meaning at all; how much more liable to blunder 
would illiterate fishermen and mechanics be? To expect — 
from such writers, if not divinely directed in their language, 
a correct statement either of facts or doctrines, would be 
weak and foolish in the extreme. On the principles of our 
author, where is the security, that even the four gospels 
contain the true doctrines of Jesus Christ? Where is the 
security that they contain a true narration of ‘facts? We 
are told, that all that was necessary was a good memory. 
But what reason have we to believe, that even good memo- 
ries might not fail? What security that they have not 
actually failed, and that the scripture history is not really 
erroneous? — . 
- Once more: If the penmen of scripture have interlarded 
the Bible with occasional observations, how-shall such ob- 
servations be distinguished from the genuine dictates of the 
Holy Spirit? Any controversialist, when pressed with a 
text of scripture, might say, “this is only an occasional, 
uninspired observation. It will not, therefore, prove your 
pom.” Thus a wide door would be opened for error ; and 
scepticism might reign to the end of the world. 
Ina word; if the plenary inspiration of the scriptures 
_ be denied, their perfection, asa rule of faith and manners, 
must be given up. If not entirely inspired by infallible 
wisdom, how can they be an infallible rule? Surely that ™ 
_ which is partly divine and partly human, partly fallible and 


\ 


48 


partly infallible. can never be an unerring rule of faith and 
practice. Sule * as Agee fein 
«<The Bible, the Bible, is the religion of Protestants,” 
was once a celebrated maxim, the truth of which no Pro- 
testant disputed. At present, however, the case is quite 
different. The maxim is opposed, not only by the church 
of Rome, but by many Socinian and Arian divines, parti- 
cularly by Dr. B. The cry now is not, The Bible, The 
Bible, but The Gospel, The Gospel, is our religion. Ac- 
cording to our author, the whole Bible is not the standard of | 
faith ; scarcely one hundredth part of it is entitled to that 
honour. We should collect, he assures us, the whole of the 
Christian doctrine from the words of Jesus. We should 
‘depend, for our knowledge of doctrinal points, solely on 
the gospels. Nay, in the Doctor’s bold and daring enterprise 
of cutting down the standard of our faith, he proceeds still 
farther. <‘ Hence we may deduce,” says he, ‘‘ not only 
‘the sufficiency of scripture in general, but also the 
c¢ sufficiency of every evangelist separately, as to fundamen- 
hy tals.”’ . 
He argues, that the gospels, either jointly or separately, 
are the standard of faith, because they contain “all those 
essential principles, without which we could not be saved.”’ 
But this reasoning is evidently absurd. It proves too much, 
and, therefore, proves nothing at all. The five books of 
Moses contain all that is essential to salvation ; and there- — 
fore the Pentateuch is the standard of our faith. Peter’s 
sermon contains all that is essential to salvation ; and there- 
fore Peter’s sermon is the-standard of our faith. Who sees 


. 


not the extreme weakness and futility of such a mode of 
reasoning ; upon this absurd principle we might set up, not 
one; but an hundred standards of faith. } v4 
In curtailing the standard of our faith, the Doctor pro- 
ceeds to a still more daring length. “‘ From this,’’ says he, 
p. 45) ‘ another undeniable inference follows; that no. 
¢ principle which cannot be clearly proved from every one 
«cof the evangelists, can be an essential article of faith; 
<¢ for, otherwise, we must suppose, that some one of them 
«has omitted an essential truth. If then, you be in doubt, 
‘¢ whether any doctrine be necessary to salvation, try it by 
‘c this test ; look for it in the gospels; and if you do not 
«<find it plainly declared in them all, you may safely con- 
‘clude, that it is not essential to the plan of redemption. 
“Tf any person attempt to impose a spurious tenet upon 


~ 


: 49 
i 
“¢ you, require him to prove it in this manner. If he fail, 
‘you may be assured, that the point in, question is not even 
‘an important truth. This I recommend as a sure guide 
“to conduct you through the intricacies of controversy, 
**and prevent you from being entangled in the nets of so- 
‘¢ phistry.”’ 

Let us try the Doctor’s ‘‘sure guide.”’ 1 ask, then, is 
the doctrine of forgiving injuries an essential article of 
faith? Certainly it is; our author himself will not deny it. 
He assures us, (p. 89,) that God is “ forgiving to the mer- | 
“ciful, and inexorable to those who withhold pardon and 
“compassion from others.”’ And again, (p. 229,) ‘ He 
“trequires nothing to make him merciful, but to be 
“‘merciful ourselves ;, notliing to make him placable 
“‘but to be meek, lowly, and forgiving.’’ According 
to Doctor B. therefore, forgiveness of injuriesis a most 
essential article of faith, and yet, according to the same 
- Dr. B. it is no ‘essential article of faith.’ It is not even 
‘an important truth.’ Try it by the Doctor’s sure guide. 
Is it taught in every one of the evangelists? itis not. It 
is taught indeed by three of the evangelists, and we would 
naturally suppose, that at the mouth of three such witnesses 
every doctrine would be established. These witnesses 
assure us that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither 
will our heavenly father forgive us our trespasses. But all 
this is nothing. John omits it; and therefore “it is not 
*< even an important truth!’ 'The same may be said of the 
doctrine of repentance. 

_. Thus it appears, that the Dogtor’s sure guide is a false 
guide. It goes upon the false principle which our author 
assumes, that all the essential articles of faith are contained 
in every one of the gospels. He particularly assures us (p. 
45,) that the Apostle John “ committed to writing every 
‘‘ fundamental doctrine, every thing necessary towards ob- 
‘“ taining life eternal.” Now, he admits, that forgiving in- 
juries is a fundamental doctrine, and necessary towards ob- 
taining eternal life ; and yet John has not committed it to 
writing. It is not «‘ plainly declared’’ in his gospel. Re- 
pentance is a fundamental doctrine, and yet not plainly de- 
celared in all the gospels. 
Task, now, does the Doctor’s book deserve the encomi- 
ums he has passed upon it? Is it ‘« consistent with itself 


“and the gospels ?”’ Is not “ his sure guide’ at variance 


Cvwihboth? : ) i 
ne 


50 


His sure guide is not only a false guide, founded on false 
principles : and an inconsistent guide ; inconsistent with 
his own acknowledged creed: it is a dangerous and des- 
structive guide—an ignis fatuus, calculated to mislead the 


Heaven-bound traveller, 
of perdition. 


and to plunge him into the gulf 


Following this guide, men might live and die implacable, 


‘and impenitent, and yet 


presumptuously hope to be saved ! 


They might say, ‘* According to Dr. B.’s sure guide, nei- 
‘¢ ther forgiveness of injuries nor repentance is an essential 
«¢ doctrine: it is not even an important truth—we will 
« neither repent nor forgive :”? and thus they might go 


«« down by the sides of 
me hand Ui. 


the pit “ with a lie in their right 


Finally ; the Doctor’s sure ouide is an IMPIOUS GUIDE. 
~ Itimpiously degrades almost the whole of the sacred volume. 
Roe ores ve 
According to it, no truth is important that 1s not plainly 


declared in all the gospe 


ls. Now, the sermon on the mount 


is not contained in all the gospels. The Lord’s prayer is 


not contained in all the 
ss not contained in all th 
contained in all the gosp 


gospels. His intercessory prayer 
e gospels. His parables are not 
els. His long and affecting vale- 


dictory address, recorded in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and 
sixteenth chapters of John, is not contained in all the 
gospels. . The institution of the Lord’s supper is not con- 
‘fained in all the gospels.—Exclude from any one of the 
gospels whatever is not found in all the rest—exclude, also, 
the writer’s own << oeeasional observations’’—exclude, 
again, the uninspired “ narration of ordinary facts’ —ex- 


clude all these, and then 
might venture to assert, 


tell me how much will remain. I 
that the whole Bible would thus 


be compressed into @ tract of less than ten pages Los 
Addison, in his Spectator, observes, “ That if all the 


«« books in the world we 
«© many a bulky volume 
«< penny paper.” Dr. B 


re reduced to their quintessence, 
would make its appearance in a 
_ has tried the experiment. He has 


subjected theword of God to this reducing process.— Yes, to 
a penny paper he has reduced the quintessence of the whole 


sacred volume! Taving 
Deism is both short and 


advanced so far, the transition to 
easy. Nor would the bold and 


daring attack of infidelity be half so dangerous. 

Dr. B. not only excludes the scriptures in general from 
the standard of our faith, but he actually pours contempé 
upon them. As the standard of our faith, he not only re- 


presents them as useless, but as positively injurzous. ** It; 


” 


51 


«¢ Christians,”’ says he (p. 58,) ‘‘ had drawn all their creeds 
<< from the words of Jesus Christ, their religion would have. 
* retained its primeval simplicity. If the simplicity of the 
‘ gospel had been thus preserved, uniformity would have 
<* also very generally prevailed, and Christians would have - 
«‘ kept the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. This 
‘‘ simplicity and uniformity would have preserved it from 
«« cavil. The pure doctrine of Christ is asubject of praise, 
«© even among sceptics ; and their ridicule and invective are 
«© generally directed against mysterious and metaphysical 
«‘ innovations, even when their object is, to bring Chris- 
‘¢ tianity itself into disrepute. It may be reasonably sup- 
“‘ posed, that, if the creeds of, Christians had remained 
<¢ simple and pure, there would have been fewer occasions 
<¢ for scandal and offence. ‘Their controversies would have 
«been milder and fewer in number, and their conduct, it 
‘may be presumed, more peaceable and pure. They 
- « would have spoken the truth in love. That great scourge 
«© of human nature and disgrace of the Christian church, 
‘«¢ Persecution, could scarcely have found any pretext for 
«¢ cruelty in the words of Christ. The Christian religion 
«would have so charmed and edified mankind, that it 
‘< would, by this time, have covered the whole face of the 
“ earth. Men would have hailed it as the messenger of 
«glad tidings. The prophecies of Christ would have re- 
«ceived already, that completion which awaits them at 
« Jast. All mankind would have become one family, duti- 
‘¢ fully performing the will of their common father, practis- 
“* ing the instructions of their great preceptor, and behay- 
- “ing to each other as brethren. Their swords would have 
«¢ heen transformed into plough-shares, and their spears 
«¢ forged into pruning hooks. Men would learn war no 
‘s more, and would every day become more and more fit 
_ for translation into heaven. ‘The Spirit of God would 
‘< descend (the Doctor concludes poetically) and rest upon 
«¢ their hearts, like the dove, the emblem of peace, gentle- 
«© ness, and love.’” . 
So then, from a creed drawn from the gospels, all bless- 
ings and happiness would flow; but from creeds drawn 
from the whole word of God, all evils, natural and moral, 
‘have ensued! Is not this to represent the scriptures of 
truth (the gospels alone excepted) as the pestilential source 
of every evil? In this representation, is it not more than 
insinuated, is it not plainly implied—that these sacred 


52 


oracles have been the means of destroying the primeval 
simplicity of religion, of fomenting divisions, and of banish- 

ing from Christians the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
peace ?—that they have exposed Christianity to the cavil, 

the ridicule, and invective of sceptics ; destroyed the sim- 
plicity and purity of creeds ; furnished occasions for scandal 

and offence ; increased and exasperated controversies ; 

and ultimately destroyed purity and peace ?—That to them 
may be imputed persecution, cruelty and war ?—that to 

them may be ascribed all the Heathenism, Mahometanism, 

and infidelity, which at present deform the face of this globe? 
—that but for their baneful influence (I shudder as I write) 

the Christian religion would, by this time, have covered the 
whole earth ?—that by their baneful influence, the comple- 
tion of the prophesies is retarded, the union of mankind 

into one family counteracted, men prevented from doing the 
will of their Heavenly Father, from practising the instruc- 
tions of their great Preceptor, from behaving to each other 
as brethren, and, finally, from enjoying the pacific and 
beneficent influences of the blessed Spirit of God ?—If all 
these insinuations and implicit charges be just, the blasphe- 
mous conclusion would follow—that the greater part of the 
Bible is not a BLESSING but a cuRSE! 

The insinuations, however, are unjust, and the charges 
groundless. ‘The true state of this matter is the very reverse 
of the Doctor’s representation. ‘The Doctor recommends 
a partial creed—a creed drawn from a part of Revelation, 
from the Gospels alone.—The want of such a creed, he 
represents, as the baneful source of all our woes. Now, 
the very reverse, I am convinced, is the fact. The evils 
complained of originate, not from creeds founded on the 
whole of revelation, but from partial creeds, creeds drawn 
from particular parts of the sacred volume—creeds like that 
which we find recommended, praised, and pdopted by the 
learned Doctor.* 

The foundation of creeds, in my humble opinion, should 
be no narrower than that of the Church of the living God. 
Like that sacred edifice, they should rest on the broad basis 


* After all his invectives against them, it appears that the Doctor, 
at heart, is vo enemy to creeds. No man ever extolled creeds more, 
than he has eulogized those partzal ones, which he would wish to be 
drawn from a part of revelation—from the gospels alone. 


53 


of the scriptures. ‘T'o narrow the foundation of the Chris- 


tian faith, as our author has done—to circumseribe Chris- > 


tian doctrine—to abridge the sacred volume—to exclude the: 
Old Testament, and the greater part of the New, from the 
creed of the Christian, is to subvert the Christian faith, and 
overturn the Christian system—it is an attempt to tear away 
the greater part of that imperishable foundation, on which 
the church of God is built. Vain and fruitless attempt !— 
When the Doctor has first inverted the highest pyramid of 


Egypt—when he has succeeded in placing that stupendous 


pile of building on its apex instead of its base—then, and 
not till then, let him attempt to invert the church of Ged, 
by endeavouring to poise that glorious fabric on the narrow 
pivot of a few pages, instead of rearing it on the broad basis 

of ‘ the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief’ 
‘* corner stone.’’* 


Whilst degrading the other Scriptures, our author exalts - 


the Gospels t too high. This, to a superficial thinker, may 
appear impossible ; but it is not. We exalt them too high, 
when we raise them on the ruins of the other Scriptures. 
We exalt the Gospels too high, when, with Dr. B., we vainly 
imagine, that creeds doen Geni them must be necessarily 


'* The Antrim Presbytery, in their petition tothe House of Commons, 
make the following declarations :—“ that your petitioners are so far 
« from entertaining any sentiments derogatory to the Holy Scriptures, 
<¢ that they do believe, that there, and there only, can be found the true 
“ unpolluted doctrine of Christ crucified—that they invariably appeal 
*$ to the sacred volume for the truth of what they teach, and are at all 
“ times ready to reject any opinion that can be sai hide to be at variance 
66 with the word of God.” — 

According to this declaration, the members of the. Antrim Presbytery 
hold no sentiments derogatory to the Holy Scriptures.—With what 
truth Dr. B, could sign such a declaration, let the reader of the prece- 
ding pagesjudge! That the sentiments, on which Ihave been animad- 
verting, are not only derogatory, but HIGHLY derogatory to the Holy 
Scriptures, no unprejudiced person can deny. ° 

The declarations of the Antrim Presbytery, I regret to say, are am- 
biguous and equivocal. They declare, that the doctrine of Christ 
crucified may be found in the Holy Scriptures. How found?—asa 
few grains of wheat ina bushel of chaff? This, as we have already 
seen, appears to be Dr. Bruce’s view of the subject ! 

They declare again, that they appeal invariably to the sacred volume 
for the truth of what they teach. But how do they appeal to the sacred 


volume?) Do they appeal to the whole of it, or only to the one hundreth | 


part of it? Do they make the whole of it the standard of their faith, or 
only a few pages? What a pity wise are Fh Sa were NOE nore 
explicit ? 

Be 


~ 


5A 


pure, calculated to eradicate all evil, and to introduce all 
good. What, I ask, is in the words of Jesus Christ, which — 
prevents them from being perverted, as well as the other 
Scriptures? Noruine.—Notwithstanding all the Doctor’s 
high encomiums on the Gospels—and they are worthy of 
encomium—have they not been actually perverted? THEY - 
HAVE.) © | 

What words have been more perverted than these, ‘‘ Thou 
‘¢ art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church ?”’ 
Has not the supremacy of the Pope been founded upon 
them? 

What words have been more perverted than these, «¢ This 
‘‘ismy body. Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood 
‘“ of the son of man, ye have no lifein you?” Has not the | 
monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation been founded upon 
them ? ce 

What words have been more perverted than these, «* Ex- 
‘¢ cept ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish?” Has not 
the doctrine of penance been founded upon them ? ; 

What words have been more perverted than these, 
«« Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven?’ Has 
not the blasphemous doctrine of indulgences been founded 
upon them ?—Thus it appears, that the Doctor’s fine theory 
is contradicted by facts. Facts prove, that the most*mon- 
strous and abominable creeds have actually been drawn 
from the very words of our blessed Redeemer ! 

After extolling the Gospels too high, by raising them on 
the ruins of the other, Scriptures, he finally degrades them, 
by admitting that «they have produced unhappy effects on 
“ our perverse and crooked generation.’ Neither the Gos- 
pels, nor any other part of the Scriptures, ever “+ produce 
unhappy effects.” They may be the innocent occasions, 
but-can never be the causes of evil.* 1) OO De Ate 

‘Having examined the Doctor’s “‘surE eurpE,” let us now 
attend to his ““SArE RULE.” ail | DRE Ni 

Page 39, he writes thus: ‘* But, the question, to which ° 
J mean chiefiy:'to confine myself, at present, relates to 


* J do not impute this to the Doetor as a designed charge upon the 
Gospels. It is only one of those numerous instances in, which he has 
failed in expressing what he meant. In the present case, he has, unin- 
tentionally. degraded the Gospels, by confounding the distinction 
between an occasion and a cause. . 2 Cee 


a0 I! 


55 


« disputed doctrines. Here, if you were asked, Understand 
‘‘ ye what ye read? you might well reply, How can we, 
‘¢ except some man guide us /—And then the question re- 
<¢ curs, Who shall guide us? What direction shall we look 
‘¢to in controversy? ‘l'o whom shall we apply, when 
‘‘ learned men and whole churches differ? How shall the 
‘« people decide, when their teachers, and other learned di- 
“vines, disagree ? This is an interesting question, at all 
‘times; and never more so, than at present, when reli- 
‘¢ gious controversy is so much the vogue. 

‘«¢ Perhaps, the shortest answer that can be given. is, Let 
‘them alone. Let them differ, and do you adhere only to 
‘‘ those points in which they all agree. Christians must 
‘¢ necessarily coincide in opinion, upon many important 
“truths. We may, I believe, safely say, that they concur 
‘« on every doctrine, which can justly be called fundamen- 
«tal. Their agreement on these, while they differ on other 
‘* points, is a strong reason for exabracing them: their dif- 
‘¢ ference upon subordinate doctrines, must excite a suspi- 
< cion that they may not be true ; and a belief, that they 
“are not essential. So that, if there be any tenet, upon 
*‘ which you have not the means of attaining to a rational 
‘¢ belief, you had better leave if among polemics and con- 
«-troversionalists, till they agree among themselves ; and, 
‘cin the mean time, addict yourselves to those practical, 
‘* edifying, and well established principles, in which they 
Ks concur. This is the safest general rule that 1 can give to 
sVvOu.. 

So then, with regard to all those doctrines which have 
been disputed, the safest ruic Dr. B. can give, is, “unr 
THEM ALONE.”’ Now, really, if our learned author had no 
better rule to give than this, with great submission, I con- 
ceive, it would have been inf initely better to have ah Ne 
rule-at all. 1 shall assign my reasons. 

Taking the Doctor’s safe rule in their hands, the pity, 
i cade part of his congregation might reason thus:— 

‘«« Whether any day be holier than another, is a point dis- 
‘« puted by learned divines; we will therefore let the obserd- 
‘Cance of the Christian Sabbath alone. t cannot be a mat- 
“ter of any great importance, whether we dts it in teli- 
* gious services, or in business an id amusement. 
“ Baptism is a disputed poiat : we will < Tet it n 
eoWe will not have our children baptized; for iti isof no 
Ss Peeeranee whether they are baptized or not. 


56 


*« The Lord’s Supper is a disputed point: we will ¢ fet 
“¢ ¢t alone.’ ‘Whether we commemorate the dying love of 
‘¢ Jesus or not, is a matter of no importance. 

«Secret prayer, family worship, social worship, public 
‘© worship, in a word, all divine ordinances, public and pri- 
“* vate, are disputed points: according to the safe rule of 
‘© our good minister, Dr. B., we will let them alone.. We 
‘¢ will neither worship God in public nor in private. . At- 
‘‘ tendance on such ordinances can be of no importance. 
‘«¢ Particularly, we will ‘ let the Bible alone ;’ for whether 
‘¢ the laity should read it at all, has been matter of dispute ; 
‘‘ and at present it is disputed whether we should read it 
‘‘ without note or comment. We will leave the Bible 
‘*‘ among polemics and controversionalists, till they agree 
‘¢ among themselves about the reading of it. 

“We will let the moral law alone: for whether we are 
‘* obliged to keep it or not, is a matter of dispute among 
‘< learned divines. It is therefore a matter of no conse- - 
«¢ quence, whether we study to keep the commandments of 
‘¢ God, or live in the open violation of them; whether we. 
‘* study purity in heart, speech and behaviour—or live in 
“* rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness— 
‘¢ giving ourselves up to work all uncleanness with greedi- 
“ness. The difference cannot be great: for some sects 
‘« have maintained that good works are so far from being 
“* necessary, that they are obstacles to our salvation. Ac- 
- cording to the safe rule of our good minister, we will let 
<¢ the moral law alone !”’ . 

But I must now stop. I cannot go farther. into detail. 
To point out all the absurdities of this ‘‘ sarm RULE,”? would 
fill volumes. If this safe rule of the Doctor’s be a good one, 
where are all our peculiar principles as Dissenters? All 
these principles were disputed principles. They were, 
therefore, of little importance ; and yet our forefathers shed 
ther blood in defence of them. According to the Doctor’s ~ 
safe-trule, they «‘ died as afool dies!” 9. 2 ey 

_ Again: If the Doctor’s ‘‘ saje rule’’ be a good one, what 
besomes of all our peculiar principles as Protestants ? What 
betomes of all the peculiar doctrines of the Reformation— 
thoye doctrines, which the martyrs sealed with their blood ? 
Thty were all. disputed doctrines, and, therefore, unimpor- 
tant. The blood of the martyrs was shed in vain! © ~ 

In one sense, indeed, the Doctor’s rule must be acknor- 
ledget to be a safe one. et Pei 


57 


No rule could be safer for the Church of Rome. Yt would 
‘have put an extinguisher on the Reformation. With regard 
to the disputed doctrines, our author would have said, ** Let 
‘< them alone. Leave them among the polemics and contro- 
“ versionalists, till they agree among themselves.”? Now, as 
they have not yet agreed among themselves, the Reforma- 
tion would not have yet commenced ; Dr. B. and his hear- 
ers would have been, at this very moment, stanch Catho- 
lics, in the warm embraces of the old mother church!—My 
readers will forgive me, if, impelled by the force of truth, I 
proceed still farther, and say : , 
No RULE COULD BE SAFER FOR THE KINGDOM OF SATAN. 
If universally adopted, it would have effectually secured the 
perpetuity of his reign, and the integrity of his empire. With 
great deference, I call upon Dr. B.—I call upon all the 
Arians in the world—to mention, if they can, one single 
truth, which Satan and his emissaries have not disputed. 
Under the Old Testament dispensation, Satan’s emissaries, 
his false prophets, opposed and disputed those truths deli- 
vered by the prophets of the Lord. Would Dr. B. have 
said on this occasion, ‘‘ Let those disputed truths alone, 
“ till the prophets agree among themselves ?”’ A safe rule, 
indeed, for Satan’s kingdom! The Old Serpent himself 
could have invented none better. : 
Again: In the commencement of the Christian era, Sa- 
tan’s false apostles opposed and disputed the doctrines 
taught by the true apostles of Jesus Christ. (¢ Cor. xi. 13, 
14, 15.) <‘* For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, 
‘* transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And 
‘no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an 
‘angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his 
“‘ ministers also be transformed, as the ministers of right- 
<¢ eousness, whose end shall’be according to their works.” 
When the apostles of Jesus and those of Satan were thus 
disputing the great doctrines of the Gospel, would our au- 
thor haye said, “‘ Let those doctrines alone. Leave them 
«© among the polemics and controversionalists, till they have 
_ agreed among themselves ?”” No rule in the world would- 
have contributed more effectually to the safety and prospe- 
rity of Satan’s kingdom! On the principle of this rule, the . 
Christian religion could have never been propagated. 
. As Satan had his false prophets under the legal dispen- 
sation, and his false apostles at the commencement of the 
‘Christian era, so in every subsequent period of the church, 


58 

at least till the time of the millennium, he has had, or will 
have, his false teachers. Our Saviour warned us against 
such seducers. (Matthew, viii. 5.) ‘+ Beware of false pro- 
‘* phets, which come to you in sheeps’ clothing ; but in- 
‘¢ wardly they are ravening wolves.”? The apostle Peter 
sounds the alarm, and puts the church on her guard against 
the intrusion of men, who would “ come in unawares, and 
‘* privily introduce damnable heresies, denying the Lord 
*‘ that bought them, and bringing upon themselves and 
** their followers swift destruction.”? ‘The apostles Paul, 
Jude, and John, all blow the trumpet and sound the alarm.. 
Their injunctions to us are, «« Beware! Beware! Be not 
** deceived. Let no man beguile you. Stand fast in the 
‘* faith. Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
‘‘ the saints. Stand fast in one spirit and one mind, striv-_ 
‘* ing together for the faith of the Gospel.’ With these 
apostolic injunctions, the advice of Solomon is completely 
In unison; ‘* Buy the truth, and sell it not.” : 

I’rom these observations, it is abundantly evident that 
‘“‘the Devil, our adversary, is still going about as a roaring 
** lion, seeking whom he may devour ;’”’ that he is still 
opposing the truths of the Gospel. The adoption of the 
Doctor’s safe rule would be a base desertion of truth, and 
dereliction of duty. Instead of ‘' resisting the Devil, that 
he may flee from us,” it would be a surrendering to Satan | 
at discretion. It would be leaving his emissaries in undis- . 
turbed possession of the field. No, Doctor Bruce! The 
friends of the Redeemer are not so cowardly. Rallying 
round the standard of truth, in the name of their God they 
will display their banners: nor will they leave the field till 
they “see Satan falling like lightning from heaven to 
earth ;” till they see truth bursting through the clouds of 
error, and ‘ the knowledge and glory of the Lord covering 
‘* the earth, as the waters cover the sea.” ea 

If the Doctor’s safe rule be adopted, what becomes of all 
his own principles ?—his principles as a Protestant ?—as a 
Dissenter ?—as a Presbyterian ?—as a member of the An- 
trim Presbytery? What becomes of the doctrines taught 
in his volume of sermons—the same doctrines which were 
taught previously by ‘those eminent ministers, Halliday 
“* and his grandfather, Drennan and Brown, Mackay and . 
** Crombie’’—the same doctrines which were taught for a 
century past, by the Presbytery of Antrim? These are all 
disputed doctrines ; and this very circumstance, according 


59 


_ to the Doctor’s own acknowledgment, ‘ must excite a suse 
picion that they may not be true.’’ Why, then, should he 
preach those suspicious doctrines? Why did his boasted 
predecessors, for a century past, preach those suspicious. 
doctrines? Why do all the other members of the Antrim 
Presbytery, as well as himself and his son, continue to 
preach those suspicious doctrines ? What! the Presbytery 
of Antrim preaching, for a century, doctrines confessedly 
suspicious? ‘Tell it not in Gath! publish it not in Aske- 
lon! lest Deists should rejoice, and Infidels triumph. 

I have dwelt the longer on the Doctor’s safe rule, as I 
believe it to be arule too generally adopted ; and a rule 
fraught with incalculable mischief. Why are so many dis- 
-senters returning to the bosom of the church of England ? 
Why are so many Protestants returning to the bosom of the 
church of Rome? I answer, our author’s safe rule, and 
other kindred maxims, have a powerful influence in pro- 
ducing these effects. ‘* No matter what we believe, if we 
‘are sincere.’’ ‘* Those doctrines, about which good 
“* men differ, cannot be important.”’ 


*¢ For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight : 
- His can’t be wrong, whose life is in the right.” 


These have been the prevailing, fashionable maxims of 
the past century—maxims, as unphilosophical, as they are 
unscriptural—maxims, which separate theory and practice 
——maxims, which confound truth and error ; absurdly repre- 
senting both as equally favourable to virtue! Upon the 
principle of such maxims, it is natural to ask, Why did 
those graceless zealots, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and the 
rest of our reformers, fight with the church of Rome about 
modes of faith? Why did they throw all Europe into 
flames for no purpose? “ These graceless zealots’”—ma 
the patrons of such maxims say—‘ acted as fools by des- 
“< troying the peace of Christendom; but we are men of 
“ pacific dispositions, and will show our superior wisdom, 
‘* by returning to the bosom of our mother church,’ 4 
** part of all will be saved.”” ‘* When we goto Heaven, it 
‘© will never be asked, Are you Catholics, Churchmen, or 
Dissenters ?”’—I ask any man of candour—any man ca- 

pable of the slightest reflection—Have not such « safe 
rules’ and liberal maxims a direct tendency to stop the 


> 


60 


march of mind—to arrest the progress of Reformation— 
and to lead us back into darkness and Popery ? 

How different the sentiments of our blessed Redeemer 
and his Apostles! ‘* Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy 
‘< word is truth.” ‘God hath chosen you to salvation 
‘¢ through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. 
‘«< Because they received not the love of the truth, that they 
“«‘ might be saved, God gave them over to strong delusions 
‘© to believe a lie, thatall might be damned who believe not 
~<¢ the truth.” ‘Come out from among them, my people,” 
dc. | 

Nearly allied to the Doctor’s sure guide, and safe rule, is 
the following maxim laid down in his treatise on the Being 
and Attributes, (P. 12): ‘+ It is also a law of our nature, 
“that we cannot discredit testimony, when sufficiently 
“strong.” Though this maxim, at first sight, appears quite 
plausible ; yet, ifduly examined, I humbly conceive, it will be 
found to subvert the foundation of the Christian system, and 
to lead directly to Deism, to Atheism, and to blasphemy, 
__'These assertions are strong, I acknowledge. That they 
are not too strong will appear, I am convinced, by the fol- 
lowing syllogisms : | 

«« It is a law of our nature, that we cannot discredit tes- 
‘¢ timony, when sufficiently strong.” 

But the testimony in favour of the truth of Christianity, 
has beeri discredited ; 

Therefore, the testimony in favour of the truth of Chris- 
tianity, was not sufficiently strong. : 

Does not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor’s maxim, 
level to the dust the whole fabric of Christianity ? Does it 
not lead directly to Dzism? 

Again: “ Itis a law of our nature, that we cannot dis- 
<< credit testimony, when sufficiently strong.” 

But the testimony, which God has given in favour of the 
truth of his own being and attributes, has been discredited ; 

Therefore, the testimony, which God has given in favour 
of the truth of his own being and attributes, is not suffi- 
ciently strong ! . 

I ask again: Does not this syllogism, founded on the 
Doctor’s maxim, lead directly to Arnersm ? 

Once more: ‘It is alaw of our nature, that we cannot 
<¢ discredit testimony, when sufficiently strong.” 

But the testimony God has given of his Son, the testi- 
mony which the Son has given of the Father, and the testi- 


61 7 


mony which the Holy Spirit has given of both, have been » 
discredited ; f ; 
Therefore, the testimonies of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, are not sufficiently strong! : 
Whether or not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor’s 
maxim, leads to blasphemy, let the reader judge. 

If testimony, when sufficiently strong, cannot be discre- 
dited; neither faith isa duty nor unbelief a sin. Necessity 
of nature is quite incompatible with virtue and vice, praise 
and blame. Hence it is, | humbly presume, that the un- 
philosophical, and unscriptural ideas of the innocence of 
error,* and the trivial importance of truth, have gained 
such currency in the present age. When testimonies or 
doctrines are discredited, the fault must either be in the evi- 
dence, or in the mind that perceives it. Now, with regard to 
the doctrines of the Bible, or the testimony in favour of the 
truth of Christianity, what Christian would say, that the fault 
is in the evidence? God never requires of his rational crea- 
tures any thing unreasonable—any thing naturally impossible. 
If he requires men tc believe in the truth of Christianity, he 
has given sufficient evidence of that truth. If he requires 
men to believe in the doctrines of the Gospel, he has given 
suffieient evidence of the truth of those doctrines. Itis on 

__* this principle alone, that faith is a duty, and unbelief and 

_ €rror, sins. ‘The understanding is the judge, bound to give 
a verdict according to evidence; but the judge may be 
bribed.—The will, the affections, thé appetites and passions, 
blind the understanding, pervert the judgment, and influence 
the belief. . It is almost proverbial, that what we wish we 

easily believe; and that— we) 


‘* A man convinced against his will 
‘* Is of the same opinion still.” Say 


vi Jet MUORT ALM abnaT ae ea a ee ST SS 


—®  * Dr. B. maintains that error may not only be innocent, but right- 
eous and holy! The well-instructed Christian, he assures us (P. 157), 
will see—* that while he adhered to the gospel he was at least safe: 
“ that the sincere profession of a holy and righteous faith, though it 
‘‘ were erroneous, must be pleasing to a holy and righteons God.” 
What! Holy and righteous erroneous faith! Whatia combination of 
words! _“ Pious frauds” are not more monstrous, than holy and right- 
eous- errors. It is not more blasphemous to affirm, that the God of — 
holiness may delight in sin, than to assert, that the God of truth must 

_ be pleased with error !—Need we be at all astonished that Infidels ex- 
claim, Priestcraft! and Imposture! when we hear an erroneous faith 
hot only pronounced innocent, but righteous and holy, by a learned 

- Divine, a Doctor of Divinity ? : ' 


- ; 6 


\ 


3 
~ 


‘ 


62 


If error, unbelief, Deism, and even Atheism, arose purely 
from the exercises of the understanding, without any con- . 
cern of the will, the affections, the heart; they would not 
be criminal. But the case is quite otherwise. Each of 
these is highly criminal ; because the decision of the judg- 
mentis perverted by the influence of the will, the affections, 
and dispositions of the heart. It is ‘‘ with the heart man 
believes” —there is “‘ an evil heart of unbelief’ *«« the fool 
gays in his heart, There is no God.” This is a subject of 
great delicacy and importance. Confounding the pure acts 


‘of the understanding, with those which are influenced by 


the will and inclination, has induced men of the greatest 
talents, to consider error, unbelief, Deism, and even Athe- 
ism, as innocent. A remarkable instance of this we have 
in Brougham’s inaugural address, in Glasgow University ; 
and in his speech in the House of Commons. In the for- 


mer he represents man, as having no control over his belief, 


and as no more accountable for it, than for the «‘ hue of his 
«< skin, or height of his stature.” In the latter, he declares, 
«< that if a man were an Atheist, or an Infidel, it was his 
‘¢ misfortune, not his fault ; and that he should be viewed 
«¢ with pity, not with blame.” All this proceeds upon the 
erroneous hypothesis, that our wills, inclinations, appetites, * 
passions and prejudices, have no influence on our belief. 
Were the premises true, the conclusion would be unavoida- 
ble ; but the premises are false, and therefore the conciu- 
sion is erroneous. It is equally opposed to the philosophy 
of the human mind, and the infallible dictates of divine 
Revelation. “ He that believes not shall bedamned. And 
‘<< this is the condemnation, that light is come into the 
«¢ world, and men love darkness rather than light ; because 
«< their deeds are evil. (2 Thes. ii. 10, 1], 12.) ‘« Because 
«« they received not the love of the truth, that they might be 
<< saved. God shall send them strong delusion, that they 
« should believe a lies that they all might be damned, who © 


«believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- 


s¢ ness.” ft ! 

By confounding what is natural with what is moral, some 
orthodox divines have fallen into the same error. : / 

MacGowan in his letters to Priestly, speaking of those 
who are grossly erroneous, says: “ They are certainly 
‘* more properly objects of my pity, than of my resentment. 
«© With as much propricty might I be offended with a poor 
«« man, who was born blind, and continues so, because he 


3 63 
~e is not a judge of colours; or with a deaf man, because 
‘che understands not the harmony of sounds.’? Thus the 
acute and penetrating MacGowan stumbles on the same 
ground with our great Parliamentary Orator. Hestumbles 
by confounding natural with moral blindness. ‘The cases, 
however, are completely distinct, and altogether different. 
The man born btind says, ‘“* Lord that I might receive my 
« sight.” Qn the contrary, those who are morally blind, 
kate the light ; they love darkness rather than light. ‘This 
is their condenmation. ‘This is the ground of their crimi- 
nality and guilt.* 
~By what I have written in the preceding pages, I do 
not mean to deny, that some parts of the sacred volume, 
and that some doctrines of divine revelation, are more im- 
portant than others ; but I maintain that they are all im- 
portant. They are all necessary—necessary to complete 
the glorious fabric of divine truth. We hear much of 
essential truths, fundamental truths, &c. It is true, in- 
deed, that the removal of foundation stones is the speediest 
mode of destroying a building ; but it is no less true, that 
a greater number of houses are ruined by the deficiency of 
their slates, pinnings, mortar, &c. than by the razing of 
their foundations. What wise man would say, when rob- 
bers are attacking his house, ‘“‘ Let them alone. If the 
foundation stones are safe, the other parts of the house are 
of inferior importance?” , 
All the paris of the human body are not equally import- 
‘ant, but they are all necessary to complete the frame. 
“The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of 
*¢thee ; nor, again, the head to the feet, I have no need 
‘Sof you. Nay, much more those members of the body 
** that seem more feeble are necessary.’?> The same is the 
case with regard to the different parts of the Bible. They 
are not all equally important ; but they are all necessary— 
necessary to complete one glorious body of divinity. The 
BRE RIE eS 2 Ee 
* [had intended to proceed farther in the discussion of this subject ; 
but, with much surprise and pleasure, I find myself anticipated by an 
able defender of the faith of the Gospel—the Rev. Dr. Wardlaw, Glas- 
gow. This pious and learned divine has published two sermons in re- 
futation of those very sentiments, which I had previously marked out 
as the subject of animadversion.—These sermons I would ‘recommend 
as useful and important—giving at once a scriptural and philosophical 
view of this dificult subject. 


' 


G4 . 


amputation of a leg, an arm, or even a finger or a toe, de- 
stroys the uniformity, and mars the beauty of the human 
body. Who would not contend for his feeblest members, 
as well as for his head or his heart ? On similar princi- 
teks what true Christian would wilfully suffer the body of 

evelation to be maimed or mutilated? ‘That man is not 
worthy of the name of a Christian, who would wilfully sur- 
render ‘* one hair or hoof” of truth. She was not the true 
mother of the child, who unfeelingly exclaimed, ‘« Let it be 
‘‘ neither mine nor thine, but divide it.” 


—— 


CHAPTER III. 


The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ defended. 


SECTION If. 
His names—particularly the names Jruovam and Gop. 


It is, I conceive, no contemptible proof of the doctrine . 
1 advocate, that the opponents of our Lord’s Divinity, feel 
it necessary to depreciate the sacred oracles. No man can 
degrade the Son of God, till he first degrade the Word of 
God. Having, in the preceding pages. erideavoured to 
repel our author’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the 
Scriptures, we shall now proceed to defend the Supreme 

Deity of our blessed Redeemer. | 
“The reader of these pages may be anxious to know, why 
the defenders of the Divinity and Atonement of Jesus 
Christ appeal more frequently to the Epistles than the Gos- 
pels. The reason is this; In the Epistles those doctrines 
are more clearly taught. Were the question put, Why more 
clearly taught by the Apostles than their Master? I an- 
- gwer, first, “« Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy 
“ sight.”? This is a sufficient answer to all those who do not 
suppose their own wisdom superior to the wisdom of 
God. In the second place, I answer the question by asking 
another. Why were more souls converted by one sermon 
of the Apostle Peter, than by all the sermons which his 


65 


Master preached during his life ? Thirdly, I answer, Had 
the Master taught the doctrines of his Divinity and Atone- 
ment, as clearly as those doctrines were afterwards taught 
by his Apostles, he would have counteracted the end of his 
mission. Had so much light been shed upon his character, 
the princes of this world would have known him; and 
«had they known him, they would not have crucified the 
Lord of Glory.” Does Dr. B., by wishing to confine us 
to the Gospels, mean to reject that flood of light poured on 
the character of our Redeemer after his ascension? Does 
he wish to reduce us to that partial light under which our 
blessed Lord was crucified? Could he succeed in this un- 
hallowed attempt, I have no doubt in saying, as human 
nature is the same in every age, multitudes would homolo- 
gate the crime of the Jews, they would cry out, ‘ Away 
“with him, away with him.”’ « Crucify him, crucify him.” 
«¢ They would crucify afresh the Son of God, and put him 
“to an open shame,” by degrading his person and 
vilifying his blood ; by denying. his Divinity and rejecting 
his Atonement. : | 

In defending the Supreme Deity of the Son of God, I 
shall follow neither the Doctor’s «sure guide” nor “ safe 
«rule ;?? but the direction of our blessed Lord himself, 
«Search the Scriptures ; for they are they which testify of 
cee." 

Our author’s attack on the Deity of our Redeemer is not 
very formidable. Out of his own mouth he stands con- 
demned. To enable me to prove, that the Lord Jesus is 
‘¢ Over all, God blessed for ever,”’ I need ask nothing more 
than what the Doctor himself admits. In his Being and 
Attributes, (p. 161) he says, ‘‘ The self-existence of the 
«Deity is expressed by his name Jenovan.”’ And, in his 
sermon on the pre-existence and example of Christ, he 
observes, (p- 133) ‘“‘ We have every reason to believe, that 
‘¢the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations were con- 
«« ducted, under God, by the agency of one Super-eminent 
«¢ Being, denominated the Angel of the Covenant, the 
«¢ Angel of the Lord, and Jenovan.’’ In one volume the 
Doctor grants, that the name Jrnovau denotes self-exist- 
ence ; and in the other he admits, that Jesus is JEHOVAH. 
Jesus,'therefore, must be self-existent, and thus the self-ex- 


 jstence of the Redeemer,. and, of course, his Supreme 


Deity, are proved by Dr. Bruce himself. Jesus Christ is 
stg 6* : 


66 , 


proved to be, what our author, chalw here, strentiously 
denies—*‘ the underived and self-existent cause of all.” 

The name Jrnovan is the distinguishing, appropriate, 
and peculiar name of the Supreme Being. This is granted 
by some of the most sensible Antitrinitarians. Yates, in 
his reply te Wardlaw, says, “‘ Jenovau, it is well known, 
‘+ is used in the Old Testament, as the peculiar and appro- 
‘¢ priate name of the Supreme God.’”? And Dr. Bruce him- 
self grants, that this peculiar and appropriate name of the 
Supreme God, is also the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
After this, ‘‘ What need of further witness? Have we not 
‘heard from his own mouth 2?” Is not the conclusion inevit- 
able—that Jesus Christ is the Supreme God? Should any 
person think, that the Doctor has betrayed his own cause ; 
or, should any person deny, that the name Jrenovan is the 
appropriate, peculiar, and incommunicable name of the 
Supreme God, I would refer him to the following texts. I 
shall quote them as they stand in the original, substituting 
the word Jenovan for Lory; for the English reader will 
observe, that when the word Lord is printed in capitals, the 
original is Jenovan. When God proclaimed his name to 
Moses, (Ex. xxxiv. 5, 6,) he passed by and proclaimed 
¢ JEnOVAH, Jrnovan.” (Amos, v. 8,) « Jenovan ig his 
“name.” (Amos, ix. 16,) ‘‘Jnnovan is his name.” 
(Hosea, xii. 5,) «* Jenovan is his memorial. ”? (Neh. 128,35 
«‘ Thou, even thou, art Jenovan alone.” (2 Sam. xxii. 32,) 
‘‘ Who is God save Jrnovan?’’ (Psalms, Ixxxii. 18,) 
‘¢ Whose name alone is Jenovan.”’ (Isaiah, xlii. 8,) “1 am 
« Jpnovan, that is my name; and my glory I will not give 
‘to another, neither my praise to graven images.” From 
these, and a multitude of other texts, it is abundantly evi- 
dent, that Jnnzovan is that name iwhich exclusively belongs 
to the Supreme Being. It isa name which he possesses in 
common with no other being. The glory of it he will not 
- give to another. 

In the Old Testament our blessed Redeemer is not only 
denominated Jenovan, but Jrnovan or Hosts, ‘‘ Hory, 
‘“ HOLY, HoLy, Hoty JEHOVAH oF HOSTS: THE WHOLE 
‘¢ EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLoRY.’’ By an inspired commen- 
. tator this sublime description is applied to our Lord Jesus 
Christ (John, xii. 41,) «* These things said Esias, when he 
“« saw his glory and spake of him.” 

Now, if the name Jetiovan, that glorious and peculiar 
name of Deity, and not only the name Jenovan, but JEHo- 


67 


VAH OF Iosts, be given to our Lord Jesus Christ ; will So- 
cinians and Arians venture to say, that our blessed Re- 
deemer is not the Supreme God ?—that he-is only a crea- 
ture, an angel, or a man?—Such was the’veneration with 
which the name Jrnovan was regarded among the Jews, 
that they conceived it a kind of impiety to utter it: they 
treated it as ineffable, and substituted another in its stead.— 
Now this great and dreadful name of the Deity, this name 
-which the Supreme God claims as his exclusive preroga- 
tive, and which he declares belongs to none but himself, is 
also the name of Jesus Curist. This is granted by Dr. B., 
and is evident—as we shall afterwards see—from a multi- 
tude of portions of Old Testament scripture. Doctor 
Bruce, therefore, and all Socinians and Arians universally, 
are necessarily reduced to this dilemma—they must either 
deny that the Supreme God has any peculiar name by which 
he may be distinguished from his creatures—they must deny 
this in the face of all those texts, quoted above—or then 
they must grant, that Jesus Christ is tun SurpremE Gop.* 
Our author agsserts, that ‘* the: instances in which the 
‘* title God is applied to Christ, are very rare ; and attended 
‘* with no greater difficulty, than those in which he is styled 
“aman.” ‘l'o find Arians balancing such difficulties, is 
not strange. In either of the cases mentioned by the Doc- 
tor, the difficulties—on the Arian hypothesis—are great in- 
deed—insuperably great. We feel none of them: they 
are peculiar to the Arian system.—In the sacred volume, 
Jesus Christ is declared to be a man, and we believe him to 
be really aman. Jesus Christ is declared to be God, and 
we believe him to be really God. Arians believe neither.— 
The Bible affirms that the Redeemer is God; but Dr. B. 
affirms that he is a creature. The Bible asserts that the 
Redeemer is a man} but Dr. B. asserts that he is an angel. 
These contradictory assertions, notwithstanding the boasted 
simplicity of the Arian scheme, present to the mind great. 
and insuperable difficclties. On the absurdity of Arian 
ideas, with regard to the humanity of Jesus Christ, I can- 
not deny myself the pleasure of laying before my readers 


* To evade the force of the preceding dilemma, should any allege 
‘that the Supreme God has some other peculiar name, and not the 
_ name JEHovAH, I challenge them to the proof. Let them produce it 

“if they can, ; ; 


+ 


68 


the following observations—observations which character- 
ise the Logician, the Philosopher, and the Divine. They 
are extracted from the introduction prefixed to Stuart’s an- 
swer to Channing : acs 

«© Those who ascribe to him (the Redeemer) true Divi- 
« nity and Humanity, do so from conviction, that no other 
“< view does justice to the varied exhibitions of his charac- 
‘ter in the Scriptures: ‘They think that even the Arian 
‘¢ hypothesis, which has been often recommended, particu- 
“‘ Jarly in a late publication, (Dr. B.’s sermons) as avoid- 
‘ino all the difficulties of other schemies, and « having 
‘* none of its own, except such as must attach to any su- 


‘¢ pernatural interposition,’ is essentially defective in two 


“ respects: not only as falling short of the majesty ascribed 
‘(to him—but is opposed to the most obvious accounts of 
‘‘ his humanity. ‘Uhe latter circumstance deserves parti- 
“ cular attention. Many do not seem to be aware, that, on 
“such a hypothesis, the humanity of the Saviour is as com- 
“« pletely rejected as his Divinity. According to this fash- 
“ionable view of his person, he was not man. He had 
‘merely a human body, but not a human soul. The only 
“intelligent principle connected with the body was a pre- 
‘ existent spirit, of a distinct and superior order, who con- 
« descended to adopt it as a frame or residence; and who 
“« thus possessed only the outward form, the shell of huma- 
“nity.” Now, it may be asked, What constitutes a human 
being? Dr. B. says, by man ‘* we mean only a human 
‘body, inhabited by a rational soul. ‘The origin, or pecu- 
‘liar properties of that soul, excepting reason, do not 
‘¢ come within our consideration.” ‘* But were a person 
‘< of plain common sense asked, whether an Angel con- 
‘« nected with a body like ours was really a Man, would he 
« not feel that there was a trifling with common and obvious 
“ language in the very question ? Doesnot the term Man, 
“< primarily refer to the intelligent principle connected with 
« the body ; and tosome peculiar properties of that princi- 
‘ple, by which it is distinguishable from other orders of 
«« intellectual existences ? It is surely not any rational prin- 
‘‘ ciple connected with a human body, that constitutes hu- 
‘smanity. The general principal of reason may exist, 
«« while the laws to which it is subjected in different beings, 
“ may vary so much as to form distinct orders of intelli- 
‘« gences. To constitute a human being; therefore, requires 


‘a rational principle, having all the faculties and capaci. 


‘ 


SB ais Trans Sire seh ws Ro ee 


69 


‘« ties, and all the laws of thought that are common to the 
species, and form their distinguishing characteristics.— 
«Such is the accuracy of Doctor Bruce’s definition of 
“© Man; to which, he says, ‘ Jesus. conformed in every 
«‘ thing.’ According to such a definition, could it be said 
‘< of him, that ‘ he was in all things made like unto his 
‘¢ brethren ?’? Even if this supposition were made, it would 
« still be a question, whether it is consistent with possibi- 
“¢ lity 2. Have we any reason fo believe, that the organiza- 
“tion of the human body could be adapted to an intelli- 
‘gence of a different nature from the human mind ; or 
‘“‘ could be the means of awakening in it ‘sensations, ideas, 
«‘ andemotions? Every thing about our constitution shows, 
‘¢ that there is the nicest and most delicate adaptation of the 
*¢ corporeal frame, to the peculiarities of the rational princi- 
* ple which we possess ; whilst we have reason to think that 
‘a change in either would disturb the whole economy, and 
‘¢ derange all the laws of thought. It should thus be seri- 
‘‘ ously considered, whether the Arian hypothesis does not 
“‘ involve difficulties and mysteries, as great as those which 
“¢ it proposes to avoid ; and whether it is more consistent 
‘¢ with the known laws of human thought, than with the 
s¢ plainest declarations of Scripture.” 

In that same page (111) on which the previous animad- 
versions are made, we find the following assertions :—‘* A 
‘< spirit, therefore, of superior excellence may, if it be the 
‘¢ will of God, occupy a human body; as we are assured 
“ that angels have done.’’* Now, where are we assured 
that angels have occupied human bodies ? No wHERE. 
Weare assured, indeed, that angels appeared in human 
form ; but we are no where assured that they occupied real 
human bodies. 

_ The philosophical observations quoted above, prove. the 
-Doctor’s opinion to be in the highest degree improbable, if 
not absolutely absurd. Besides, if angels occupied real 
human bodies, our Saviour himself occupied one before his 
incarnation in the womb of the virgin.—Three angels ap- 
peared to Abraham in the form of men; one of them was 
the Redeemer ; for the patriarch styles him Jenovan, and 


I 


_. * I take it for granted, that the case of demoniacs was not contem- 


plated by the Doctor. In that cass it was not mere bodies that were 
possessed; but bodies previously occupied by souls, ‘ 


~ 


90. 


intercedes with him in behalf of Sodom. Now, if the other 
two angels had real human bodies, so also had the Angel 
of the Covenant. ‘The evidence in both cases is the same. 
Tf, then, our Saviour had a real human body in the patriar- 
chal age, the absurd conclusion follows—that he has had 
two bodics, and has been twice incarnate! If the ideas of 
Arians respecting the human nature of Jesus be antiscrip- 
tural and unphilosophical, still more untenable are their opi- 
nions respecting his Divine nature ; they are directly op- 
posed by almost every page of the sacred volume. 

Dr. B. asserts, ‘* that the instances in which the title 
‘© God is applied to Christ are very rare.” With all due 
deference, | assert, that they are very numerous—almost 


innumerable. The principles laid down by our author him-- 


self will clearly evince the truth of this assertion. He lays 
it down as a principle—a principle in which I fully acqui- 
esce—that when God is represented as appearing, convers- 
ing, &c. the Lord Jesus Christ is intended. For no man 
hath seen God (the Father) at any time. No man hath 
seen him, nor can see him. He is the King eternal, im- 
mortal, invisible.—It is only Jesus Christ, but not God the 
Father, that has ever become the object: of our senses. 
Now, if it was the Son of God that appeared to the patri- 
archs and Old Testament saints—if it was he that convers- 
ed with them and conducted the patriarchal and legal eco- 
nomies—if it was he that chose the Israelites, brought them 
out of Egypt, led them through the wilderness, drove out 
the Canaanites from before them, and put them in posses- 
sion of the promised land—if it was he that was called the 
Angel of the Jord, the Angel of his Presence, the Angel of 
the Covenant—if it was he that was denominated Jehovah, 
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, 


the God of Bethel, &¢.—if Dr. B. grant all this—and all — 


this he fully grants—with what consistency can he main- 
tain, that ‘‘ the instances in which the Redeemer is called, 


‘* God are few?” Are not God and Jehovah the common. 


appellations by which that glorious personage is designa- 
ted? The attentive reader of his Bible will find that it is 
not in a few, but in hundreds of instances, that those epi- 
thets are applied to our blessed Redeemer. 

In the very commencerhent of the Bible—in the third 
chapter of Genesis, our blessed Saviour is represented as 
conversing with our first parents, and is styled the Lorp 
Gop, or Jenovan Gop, at least eight times.—In the thir- 


ne ay ee ee 


71 


teenth chapter of Judges, the Lord Jesus Christ is ten times 
styled the Angel of the Lord—or the Anert Jenovan, ac- 
cording to the original—and in the 22d verse he is expressly 
called Gop. ‘* And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall 
‘¢ surely die, because we have seen Gov.”? That the glo- 
rious personage who appeared to Manoah and his wife was 
-the Redeemer, admits of no rational doubt. In conjune- 


tion with the circumstance of his appearing, the names as-__ 


cribed to him sufiiciently prove it. He is not only styled 
Gop and Jrenovan, but Wonderful (verse 18), ‘* Why ask- 
‘¢ est thou after my name, seeing it is secret.’’ The epithet 
translated secret, should have been rendered WonDERFUr. 
It is so rendered by the Septuagint in this place, and by our 
translators themselves in [saiah, ix. 6, ‘* His name shall be 
* called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever- 
*‘ Jasting Father, and Prince of Peace.’”’ ‘To point out all 
the instances in which our Redeemer is styled Gop and Jr- 
“HovanH, would fill a volume. The reader may consult at . 
his leisure those passages where he is represented as ap- 
pearing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Moses, Joshua, 
the seventy elders, and other patriarchs. He will then be 
fully convinced, that the glorious personage, who appeared 
to them, and conversed with them, is,in multitudes of in- 
stances, called God and Jehovah—and Dr. B. himself will 
tellus, that the person who thus appeared was not God 
. the Father—(for he never appeared)—but. God the Son, 
our blessed Redeemer. 

Should not our author have paused ?—Should he not 
have read his Bible with a little more care, before he risked 
the bold and groundless assertion—that the instances in 
which the title God is applied to Christ are “ very rare?” 

The Doctor proceeds to make other assertions equally 
groundless. P. 112 and 113, he writes thus: «In the 
«¢ Hebrew tongue there are several terms denoting, some, 
** the Supreme God, and others, subordinate spirits, invest- 
“* ed with authority and power. From the poverty of ourlan- 
‘* guage, in this respect, we are obliged to translate them 
‘Call by the word God. The same deficiency exists in 
‘‘ Greek, the original language of the New Testament. 
‘* Hence arises the use of the word, God, in different senses, 
“* and the common opinion, that this term always signifies 
_ ** the Supreme Being.” ‘ 

What, Task, are those Hebrew terms, some of them de 
noting the Supreme God, and others subordinate spirits, 


72 hee 


which, from the poverty of our language, we are obliged 


to translate by the same word God? Let our author pro- 
duce them if he can. He will find the task difficult. Why ? 
There are no such terms. ‘There is no such poverty, either 
in our own or inthe Greek language. The Doctor’s asser- 
tion is groundless, and calculated to mislead the English 
reader. 

Fis next assertion is still more palpably erroneous. It 
is as inconsistent with fact as with grammar. ‘ Hence 
“* arises the use of the word, God, in different senses, and. 
‘* the common opinion that this term always signifies the 
« Supreme Being.’’—What! Common opinion! There 


is no such common opinion. When the Deity tells Moses, 


that he made him a God unto Pharaoh; is it the common 
opinion that Moses was the Supreme Being ? When angels 


and magistrates are called gods, is it the common opinion . 


that angels and magistrates are the Supreme Being ? 
When the Devil is styled the god of this world, is it the 
common opinion that Satan is the Supreme Being? With 
all due deference to Dr. B. I would take the liberty of 
asserting, that on this subject, common opinion is as cor- 
rect as his own. - , 
That our blessed Redeemer is in Scripture called Gop, 
Dr. B. and other Anti-trinitarians readily admit. They 
cannot deny it. But they maintain that the word is used 
in an inferior sense, and that our Saviour isonly a delegated 
God.—They tel! us, that angels are called gods—that ma- 
gistrates are called gods—that idols are called gods—and 
that even the Devil is called a god.—I know, indeed, that 
angels are called gods, but I know, also, that they are all 
commanded to worship the Redeemer. (Psal. xcvii. 7,) 
“ Worship him, all ye gods.”,—(Heb. i. 6,) “ When he 


«< bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And — 
“let all the angels of God worship him.”’—Let Dr. B., if 


he be able, quote one single portion of Seripture, where 
any person is commanded to worship angels. He will find, 
on the contrary, the worshipping of angels condemned in 
that same word of God, which enjoins those spirits to wor- 
ship the Redeemer. (Col. ii. 18.) ) | 

I know, again, that magistrates are called gods ; but I 
know, also, that there is no temptation held out in the 
sacred volume to make them the objects of religious wor- 
ship, or to confound them with the living and true God.. I 
know, that in the very same portion of Scripture where they 


- 


> 


73 


are denominated gods, they are represented as weak and 
dying creatures. (Psal. 82. 6.) ‘« I have said ye are gods; 
“and all of you are children of the Most High ; but ye shall 
<¢ die like men, and fall like one of the princes.’’ In speak- 
ing of the Redeemer as God, the language of Scripture is 


very different. (Heb. i. 8.) «* Bui unto the Son he saith, 


“ thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’ ‘thou art 
*¢ the same and thy years shall not fail.” 

Once more: | know well that idols are called gods, and 

that Satan is styled the god of this world—but I know also, 
thatin the very same Scripture, (Psal. xcvii. 7.) whereall the 
gods are commanded to worship the Redeemer, it is like- 
wise written, ‘* Confounded be all they that serve graven 
‘images, that boast themselves of idols.” I know the 
Redeemer has bruised the serpent’s head, that he will bind 
‘Satan, thrust him down into the bottomless pit, and set a 
seal upon him.—‘‘ I know that the idols he shall utterly 
** abolish.” 

That Jesus Christ is an inferior God—a subordinate God 

—a delegated God—is a doctrine which our author may 


have received by tradition from his fathers, but it is not’ 


taught in the sacred oracles. The Scriptures teach the 
“very opposite doctrine: they teach us, that Jesus Christ is 
not an inferior God, but the Mieury Gop. (ls. ix. 6.) 
‘¢ For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is-given; and 
_ “the government shall be upon his shoulders ; and _his 

“name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty 
‘¢ God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”’ 

The Scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ is not only the 
Mighty God, but the Armienty Gop. (Gen. xvii. 1.) 
«© The Lorp (JeHovan) appeared to Abraham, and said 
‘*¢ unto him, I am the Atmienty Gop.” (Exod. vi. 2, 3,) 
*¢ And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jeno- 
«* van, and | appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto 
«* Jacob, by the name of Gop Atmicuty’’—(Gen. xviii. 3,) 
‘“* And Jacob said unto Joseph, Gop AimicutTy appeared 
‘* unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me.”’ 
(Gen. xxxy. 9, 11,) ‘¢ And God appeared unto Jacob again, 


‘when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him.—. 


‘ And God said unto him, Iam Gop Aumienry.’’—Now, 

who was that Great Being who appeared to Abraham, 

Isaac, and Jacob by the name of Gop Atmicuty ? Doctor 

Bruce will answer the question. He will tell us, that it 

_ Was our blessed Redeemer ; for God the Father, he candidly 
ony ; 7 


~ 


Ba 


He 


grants, never appeared—neyer became the object of human 
senses. Jesus Christ, therefore, Dr. B. himself being wit- 
ness, is Gop ALmianry.—He is so represented, not only 
in the Old. Testament, but also in the New. (Rey. i. '8,) 
«¢T am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, 
<< saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is 
“ to come, Tun ALMIGHTY.” . Pe gee 

From pages 95, 97, 103, 104, 107, 110, 117, 134, 139, 
144, 148, &c. it appears that ALmiaury is that very epi- 
thet, which our author has selected to mark the distinction 
between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Supreme Being ; 
and yet it does not mark that distinction ; for, as we have 


~ geen above, not only God the Father, but Jesus Christ his 


Son, is in Scripture denominated Gop Aimieury. It is 
also remarkable, that, in page 95, the Doctor asserts, that 
the Atuiaury cannot become an object of human senses ; 
and yet we have seen that the Atmicury has become an 
object of human senses—his Arianism betrays our learned 
author into all these errors. In opposition to the plain 
declarations of Scripture and his own concessions, he takes 
it for granted that Jesus Christ is not rum ALMienTy. 
~ The Scriptures teach us, that Jesus Christ is not a little 
Gop, an inferior deity, but the Great Gop, (Tit. ii. 13,) 
‘¢ Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear- 
‘cing of the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.” — 
Dr. Bruce cannot deny that our Saviour, in this text, is Tus 
Great. Gop. Tie cannot deny it on two accounts—Ist, He 
cannot deny it without a violation of Greek grammar. Ac- 
cording to Grenville Sharpe’s rule, had Great God and 
Saviour referred to different persons, the Greek article would 
have been repeated before the latter noun—2dly, He can- 
not deny it without denying what he formerly granted— 
that God the Father never appears, nor can appear. “The 
glorious appearing of the errar Gop, must therefore 


gnean, not the appearing of the Father—for he never ap- 


pears—but the appearing of our Lord Jesus: Christ. It 
follows, of course, even upon the Doctor’s own principles, 
that Jnsus Curist 1s tun Great Gop. Now if Jésus — 


‘Christ is the Great God, as the Scriptures declare him to 


be, why should Doctor Bruce—why should Socinians, and 
Arians, persevere in their vain attempts to degrade him to 
the character of a creature—to the character of a inan— ° 
or to that of an angel? | Rice ee a 


15 


The Scriptures teach us, that Jesus Christ is not ‘only 
the great God, but the TRUE Gop, (1 John, v. 20.) « And 
“ we know that the Son of. God is come, and hath given us 
‘Can understanding, that we may know him that it is true; 


“and we are in him that is true; even in his Son, Jesus — 


«Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” 

The Scriptures teach us, that our Lord Jesus Christ is 
not only the Mighty God, the Almighty God, the Great 
God, and the true God, but THE onty Wise Gop. (Jude, 
~ Xxiv. 25,) ««Now unto him that is able to keep you from 
«¢ falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of 
“his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our 
* Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both 
“now and ever. Amen.’ . Who will present. believers 
before the throne of his glory? The Redeemer. (Ephes. 
v. 27,) He presents his church to himself, «a glorious 
“church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” 
(Col. i. 22,) He presents her ‘holy, unblameable, unre- 
**proveable.’? It is not God the Father, but Jesus Christ, 
that presents the church before the presence of his glory. 
Jesus Christ; therefore, ‘ts the only wise God our Saviour,” 
to whom belong “ glory and honour, dominion and power, 
**both now and ever. Amen.” 

Finally : The Scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ ‘Is 
** Gop over aut.’’ (Rom. 1x. 5,)“* Whose are the Fathers, 
“and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who 
‘tis over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” or 
“Angels and magistrates, in a very few instances, are 
called gods ; but what magistrate—what angel, except the 
Angel of the Covenant, is styled the God of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob ?—the God of Israel—the God of Bethel 


—Jenovan Goo—Jrnovan Gop or Hosts*—tie Micury | 


Gop—rne Atmiantry Gop—rur Great Gop—rus Most 
“Hien Gopj|—rur Tres Gop—ruz onty Wisr Gop—God 


- *Tn Hosea, xii. 3, 4, 5, we learn that the Redeemer—the Man— 


the Angel who wrestled with Jacob, was God—Jehovah God of Hosts; 
and that Jehovah is his memorial.” 


_T That the epithet Most Hieq is ay 
mitted by Dr. B. himself. That beautiful passage (says he, p. 96,) in 
_ Deuteronomy, is also understood to relate to the Angel of the Lord 


at is, Jesus Christ, accoiding to his own acknowledgment,) “ When 
‘the Most Hien divided the nations, their inheritance 3; &c.” In the 


(Old Testament, (Psal. 78, 56) the Israelites are said to have tempted 


lot) 35> ‘ 
A 


pplied to our Redeemer, is ad- > 


or 


¢ 


76 


over all, blessed for ever? Where are such epithets—such 
names and titles applied to magistrates, to idols, or to 
angels? No wuerr. No ‘creature in heaven or in earth 
was ever honoured with such glorious appellations. 

Dr. B. (p. 103) censures Trinitarians and Socinians for 
appealing to verbal criticisms, various readings, and philolo- 
gical disquisitions. He pronounces the Arian scheme so 
consistent and rational, that it requires no such support. 


He declares that Arians are content to take the Scriptures 


as they find them in our translation ; and, finally, he ridi- 
cules the criticisms on Rom. ix. 5, and 1 Tim. ii. 16. Now 
really, in the name of all the Trinitarians in the world, I 
plead innocent. I solemnly declare, that we are perfectly 
content to take those texts as they stand in our translation. 
The latter text asserts, that God was manifest in the flesh, 
and the former assures us, that « Jesus Christ is over all, 
God blessed for ever. Let those texts be taken as they 
are, and the controversy is ended. ‘The Supreme Deity of 
Jesus Christ, even by the acknowledgment of Antitrinita- 
rians themselves, is fully established. ‘‘If there were any 
evidence’’—says Mr. Yates, speaking of the last cited text 
_«« that this (the common) translation is correct, here 
«would be a case in point: the words of the Apostle would 
‘« present a clear and valid argument for the Supreme Divi- 
«nity of Jesus Christ.”"—p. 180. 

I leave our learned author to his choice. He must either 
retract his vain boasting, and confess that his scheme can- 
not be supported without. the aid of verbal criticism ; or 


then he must abandon the Arian system, and acknowledge, © 


that the Supreme Deity of the Redeemer is clearly esta- 
_ blished. . 

Dr. B. ridicules the idea of contending, whether there 
should be in certain parts of a sentence, commas OF full 


stops. But who sees not, that if a man were at liberty to ~ 


substitute full stops for commas, the Bible might soon be 
metamorphosed into the most erroneous oF the most nonsen- 
sical book in the world! Ina parenthesis, he says ** (for there 
‘are no stops, or division of words in the ancient MSS. 
«and neither party can produce the autograph of Paul’s 


Ee sick siilab ek ae ee ae Yea er Teg DEEN 7 
the Most Hieu Gop. This, in the New Testament,.is applied to our 


Lord Jesus Christ. (al Cor, x. 9,) ** Neither let us tempt Crist, as soma 
« of them tempted.” 


cn 


Bes. ye tie . Z Scoala allie? 
amanuensis.)’’* This parenthesis has either no meaning, or 


it absurdly supposes, that though the ancient MSS. wanted 
stops and divisions, yet the most ancient of them all—the 


- autograph of Paul’s amanuensis, had them! 


(ih SECTION II. 
Attributes of the Deity ascribed to the Redeemer. 


In the preceding section, I have endeavoured to prove, 
‘that Socinians and Arians must either maintain, in opposi- 
‘tion to the plainest dictates of Scripture and reason, that 
the Supreme God has no peculiar name by which he may 
be distinguished from his creatures, or then they must. aban- 
don their system, and grant, ruat Jesus CurisT 1s THE 
SUPREME Gop. - 

In this Section I shall attempt to show, that Socinians 
and Arians must either give up their favourite schemes, and 


admit the doctrine of the Redeemer’s Divinity, or be 


obliged to maintain the monstrous position—that the Su- 
preme Being has no incommunicable Attribute. 

Task, then—Is omnipotence an incommunicable attribute 
of Deity ? Jesus Christ is omnipotent. He is the Al- 
mighty, as we have abundantly proved in the preceding sec- 
tion. I ask again—Is omniscience an incommunicable 
attribute of Deity? Jesus Christ is omniscient. (John, 
xvi. 30,) «‘ Now we are sure that thou knowest all things.” 
(John xxi. 17,) “ Lord, thou knowest all things; thou 
“« knowest that I love thee.’’ 

To know the thoughts and the hearts of men, is repre- 
sented in Scripture, as a peculiar and incommunicable 
attribute of Deity. (1 Kings, viii. 39), «For thou, even 


_ “ thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men’? 


—but Jesus Christ claims this attribute (Rev. ii. 23,) ** And 
‘all the churches shall know, that 1am he which searcheth 
the reins and hearts, and will give unto every one of you 
* according to your works.” Is eternity an attribute of the 


_ Supreme Being ?—Jesus Christ is «The Evernastine 


,,._ Phe Doctor’s parenthesis appears, at first sight, vastly learned— 
MSS.t autograph! amanuensis ! How the illiterate will stare! When 
@ writer makes such a display of his learning, surely a little good sense 
and good grammar, would be a very useful accompaniment = 

% 


v 


Fis an! , 
ee x 


7 "8 ~ 


‘ Faruer,” (Isaiah, ix. 6,) or the father of eternity. He 
is the great I am, ‘‘ whose goings forth were of old, even 
«« from everlasting,” (Micah, v. 2)—‘‘ without beginning of 
“days or end of life,” (Heb. vii. 3)—the ‘* Alpha and 
Omega ; the beginning and the ending ; the first and the last ; . 
which is, and which was, and which is to come,”’ (Rev. 1. 
8, 17)—*« He is the same and his years fail not,’’ (Heb. 
i. 12.) Is omniprescence an attribute of Deity? Jesus 
Christ is omnipresent. (Matt. xxviii. 20,) ‘Lo, Lam with 
‘‘ you alway, even unto the end of the world.”” (Matt. xviii. 
23,) ‘« For where two or three are gathered together in my 
“‘name, there am I in the midst of them.”? (John iil. 13), 
-« And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that 
“‘ came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is 
‘“<in heaven.’ He was in heaven at the very same time he 
was here on earth: for he fills heaven and earth with his 
presence. Though the heavens now contain his human na- 
ture ; yet he -is always present with his church on earth. 
(Ex. xx. 24,) ‘In all places where I record my name, Twill 
“come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” Is immutability 
an incommunicable attribute of Deity? Jesus is immut- 
able. (Psal. cii. 25, &c.—Heb. i. 10, &c.—Heb. xiii. 8.) 
He is «‘ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.”” Accord- 
ing to the doctrine of Scripture, Jesus Christ is unchange- 
able; but according to the doctrine of Arians, he is the 
most changeable being in the universe ! According to their 
hypothesis, he is an Angel or Superangelic Being, who, in 
the revolution of ages, having gone through a state of pro- 
gressive improvement and perfectibility, had gradually ad- 
vanced to the highest dignity—a state of dignity next to 
that of the Supreme Being—a state of dignity so high, that 
he was honoured with the name God, the name Jehovah, 
&c.—a state of dignity so high, that he was employed in 
performing one of the greatest of all God’s works, the cre- 
ation of the world. This Superangelic Being divests him- 
self of his dignity and glory, dwindles down to the ignorance 
and weakness of infancy—from infancy, again, passes 
through a'state of progressive change, till he arrive at man- 
hood—performs miracles—preaches the gospel—then dies 
—rises again—advances to such a state of superlative dig- 
nity and glory, that he has obtained a name above every 
name—that angels, principalities and powers are made sub- 
ject to him—that he is the delegated governor and judge of 
‘men and angels! With great respect, but with equal con- 


- 


79 


fidence, I challenge Doctor B.—I challenge all the Arians 
in the world, to point out one single being in the universe 
so mutable, so changeable, as they have exhibited the blessed 
Redeemer—a being, not like the sun, as beautifully repre- 
sented in Scripture, but like the moon, in a state of conti- 
nual mutation and change! Such is the Arian scheme, 


which Dr. B. tells us, appears to him to avoid all the difi- 


culties of the other systems; and to have « none of its 
“‘own ; except such as must attach to any supernatural in- 
“¢ terposition.”’ ‘ . 

_ Finally, I call upon Socinians or Arians to mention any 
one incommunicable attribute of Deity, and I will engage 
to prove, that that same attribute belongs to the Redeemer. 
They must, therefore, either deny, that the Deity has any 
incommunicable attribute—any attribute by which he may 
be distinguished from his creatures—or they must acknow- 
ledge, that Jesus Christ is the Supreme God. Socinians 
and Arians tell us that angels, magistrates, and idols, are 
styled gods; but I ask them, What created angel, magis- 
trates, or idol, is represented in Scripture as the omnipotent 
God, the omniscient God, the omnipresent God, the heart- 
searching God, the eternal God, the unchangeable God 2 
Nonr.—These are the incommunicable attributes of Deity, 
and being applied to the Redeemer, they prove him to be— 
the Supreme God. ne 


- 


. SECTION III. — 
The peculiar works of God ascribed to our Redeemer. — 


The Supreme Being has made himself known by his 
works, and particularly by the work of creation. (Rom. i. 
20), ‘For the invisible things of him, from the creation of 
‘« the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things 

_“ that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” In 
the Old Testament: Scriptures, as well as the New, he fre- 
quently appeals to his works, in proof of his Deity.— He 
challenges the gods of the nations to produce similar proofs 
of their Divinity. He upbraids them, because they can 
neither do good nor do evil; and assures us (Jer. x. 11), 

_that “the gods who have not made the heavens and the® 

_ *C earth, shall perish from the earth, and from under these 

“ heavens.”’—The work of creation, we are assured, is the 
work of JEHOVAH ALONE, (Neh. ix. 6), ‘“* Thou, even 


80 


«thou, art Jenovan aLony: thou hast made heaven, the 
‘«‘ heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and all 
«¢ things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, 
«and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven 
‘¢ worshippeth thee.”? In this great work the Deity admits 
of no competitor, no partner, no instrument or subordinate . 
agent, as Arians dream. (Isaiah, xliv. 24), ‘* Thus saith 
« Jesovan, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from 
“the womb: I am Jenovau that maketh all things, that 
‘ stretcheth out the heavens aLonr, that spreadeth abroad 
the earth by mysenr.”——On the Arian hypothesis, how 
as this text to be reconciled with other Scriptures, which 
assures us, that all things were created by Jesus Christ ? 
These texts, on Jvrinitarian principles, are easily recon- 
ciled—the Deity spread abroad the earth by himself, when 
he spread it abroad by Jesus Christ; for he and the Father 
are one; but on the Arian scheme, the above-cited texts 
are utterly irreconcilable. According to Arian principles, - 
the Deity created the world, not-by himself, as asserted in 
Scripture, but by one perfectly distinct trom himself—by 
one infinitely inferior to himself—by one who is himselfa 
creature! If Arian principles be true, Jesus Christ 1s not 
only a creature, but a creature that created himself gt Gl ohn, 
i, 1, &c.), <“‘In the beginning was the Word, and the 
‘© Word was with God, and the Word was God. The 
‘‘ same was in the beginning with God. All things were 
«¢ made by him, and without him was not any thing made 
«: that was made.’? Now, if Jesus Christ is a creature, @ 
made being, as Arians affirm; and if without him was not 
any thing made that was made ; the monstrous absurdity fol- - 
lows, that he made himself! I know, that to avoid this 
gross absurdity, some of the Arians maintain—that Jesus 
Christ only created this earth—but in this they flatly contra- 
dict inspired Apostles. The Apostle John asserts, (John, 
i. 3), “That without him was not any thing made that 
«¢ was made.’ The Arian, in direct contradiction to this, 
boldly asserts, that without him thousands and millions 
of things were made. The Apostle asserts, that not one 
thing was made without him; but the Arian asserts, that 
immensely more things were-made without him than were 
made by him! For what is this world, compared to the 
universe? By the acknowledgment of Arians themselves, 
it isas nothing. The following beautiful description of the 
_ grandeur and extent of the universe, flows from the pen of 


81 


Dr. Price, one of the ablest Arian writers: (Price’s Ser- 
mons, p. 78.) . 

“© We are too apt to look upon ourselves as unconnected 

‘¢ with any superior world of beings, and_the sun and stars 
‘¢ as made only for us. ‘This is all miserable narrowness 
«¢ and shortsightedness. That earth, which appears to us 
‘© so great, is, comparatively speaking, nothing to the solar 
* system—the solar system, nothing to the system of the 
“ fixed stars—and the system of the fixed stars nothing to 
*< that system of systems of which it isa part. Irefer, now, 
‘¢ to some discoveries in the heavens which have been lately 
«made. The planets are so many inhabited worlds; and 
*c all the stars which twinkle in the sky, so many suns en- 
«¢ lightening other worlds. This no one now doubts. But 
« late observations have carried our views much farther, by 
‘© discovering that this whole vast collection of worlds and 
** systems, bears a relation to other collections of worlds 
* and systems; that our system moves towards other sys- 
‘tems; that all the visible frame of sun, planets, stars, 
© and milky way, forms one cluster of systems; and that, 
‘¢ in the immense expanse of the heavens, there are myriads 
*‘ of these clusters, which to common glasses appear like - 
*¢ small white clouds, but to better glasses appear to be as- 
*¢ semblages of stars, mixing their light. ‘I'his sets before 
*‘us a prospect which turns us giddy; but, however 
** astonishing, we have reason to believe, that all that it 
** presents to us, is nothing to the real extent and grandeur 
‘© of the universe ; for all these myriads of worlds, of sys- 
‘© tems of worlds, and of assemblages of systems, being form~ 
** ed so much on one plan, as all to require light, it is 
‘* more than probable, that somewhere, in the immensity 
** of space, other plans of nature take place; and that, far 
** beyond all that it is possible for us to descry, numberless 
‘¢ scenes of existence are exhibited, different in this respect, 
‘* and of which we can no more form a notion, than a child 
‘‘in the womb can forma notion of the solar system, or a 
** man born blind, of light and colours.”’ 

In this eloquent description Dr. Price admits, that, com- 
paratively speaking, this earth is nothing to the solar system, 
‘the solar system nothing to the fixed stars, and the system 
of fixed stars nothing to that system of systems of which it 
dsapart. This world, therefore, compared with the other 
works of God, sinks into insignificance. It is nothing, less 
than nothing, and vanity. And yet this world—this insig- 


82 


nificant world—is all thatthe Redeemer created, according 
to the view of Dr. Price, and other Arians. _ The’) Divine 
Spirit, foreseeing that violent attempts would be made to 
rob the Son of God of the honour of creation, and ulti- 
mately to despoil him of the glory of his Divinity, has been 
graciously pleased to give us ‘ precept upon precept, and 
«line upon line.” Though the testimony of the Apostle ~ 
John already quoted, is completely decisive ; the Apostle 
Paul comes in to his assistance ; and, in language, if pos- 
sible, still more conclusive, assures us, (Col. 1. 16.) that 
‘“‘ by Jesus Christ were all things created that are in heaven. 
‘cand that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
“‘ be thrones or dorninions, or principalities or powers, all. 
“things were created by him and for him—and that the is 
“¢ before all things, and that by him all things consist.” 

Paul assures us, that all things: were made by the Re- 
deemer ; and John assures us, that no one thing was made 
without him; but Dr. Price, in opposition to both, mo- 
destly asserts, that the things made by him are as nothing, 
compared with those that were made without him! Now, 
what are those things which were made without him? Are 
they things visible? No: for all things visible were made 
by him. Are they things invisible? No: for all ‘things 
invisible were made by him. Those things, therefore, which 
Arian Doctors dream were made without the Redeemer, 
must be things neither visible nor invisible! All things uni- 
versally were created by the Son of God—not only by him 
as a subordinate agent, according to Arian doctrine, but 
for him as their last end, according to the doctrine of the 
Apostle Paul, « All things were created by him and for 
€6 him?” 

In a confused paragraph (p. 127), Dr. B. observes, ‘that. 
«there is probably no word in any language, that signifies 
‘exclusively production out of nothing—that the Hebrew 
‘verb translated to create, often implies «to fashion or | 
<< forin matter already in being’—and that ‘the creation of. 
‘the world by Jesus Christ may signify no more than ar-— 
‘ranging and ordering it according to the will of God.” 
Now; if there is no word in any language that signifies ex- 
clusively production out of nothing, I would be glad to 
know, upon what scriptural evidence the Doctor rests his _ 
faith, “* That God created the heavens and the earth out of 
 nothing”’—-whilst Jesus Christ only «arranged and or- 
« dered this earth according to the will of God.” I call 


neta 83._ 


upon him to produce his evidence. I am convinced he cane 
not produce it. The assumption is completely gratuitous—. 
it is a mere ipse dixit—a dream. Whatever language is 
adduced to prove, that the Supreme Being created all things 
out of nothing, wil! equally prove, that all things were pro- 
duced out of nothing by Jesus Christ. The language and 
the evidence are in both cases the same. cs: 
_ Again: our learned author asserts, that. «we have no 
“¢ ground for deciding whether creative power be an incom- 
“‘ municable attribute of the Almighty or not.”’ 

In this opinion he is quite mistaken. To convince him 
of his error, I would request him to read those numerous 
texts, which appeal to creation as a decisive proof of the 
Almighty’s eternal power and Godhead.—A dmit, for a mo- 
ment, that creative power, may be communicated, and all 
those texts are rendered insignificant—their force is des- 
troyed—they can no longer prove what they were intended 
to prove—the eternal power and Godhead of the Deity. If 
creative power be communicable, I call upon Dr. B. to show 
that the Deity possesses any one incommunicable attribute. 
If a creature may possess creative power, how can we dis- 
tinguish the creature from the Creator? How can the liy- 
ing and true God be distinguished from idols? How can he 
‘be distinguished from the workmanship of his own hands ? 
That the Deity is known by his works, is admitted by all. 
It is by his works that he is proved to be the only living and 
true God. Without an appeal. to the works of God, we 
could never prove his. existence. But what is the use of 
such an appeal, if the Arian system be true? There js no 
work of God to which we can possibly appeal—no work 
that is not performed by Jesus Christ, one of his creatures. 
Is Creation a distinguishing work of God? Jesus Christ 
has created all things.—Is Providence a distinguishing work 
of God? Jesus Christ upholds all things. “ By him all 
‘things consist.”? He manages all the wheels of Provi- 
dence, as we see in the first chapter of Ezekiel. He directs 
those wheels in all their revolutions—brings order out of 
confusion, light out of darkness, and good out of evil. TJs 
Redemption—the new creation—the illumination of the world 
— the pardon of sin—the resurrection of the dead, or eter- 
nal judgment, a work of the Supreme God ? . All these works 
are performed by our Redeemer. = i 
mer cere, any one work peculiar to the Supreme Being 


j - 


which Jesus Christ does not perform? Nov ONE. Do the 


% 
\ 


‘ 


84 


works of God, particularly the work of creation, prove the 
Almighty’s power and Godhead? They do. Do not the 
same works prove the eternal power and Godhead of the 
Redeemer ? Most certainly. If Jesus Christ is only a mere 
ereature, as Arians contend—and if Jesus Christ performs 
all the works of the Supreme God, have we any proof that 
there is a God at all? Nonn wnatever. The Arian sys- 
tem destroys the proof of the being of a God, and leads 
to Atheism. Such monstrous absurdities induced Dr. 
Priestly, and other divines of research and penetration, to 
explode and reprobate the Arian system. These divines 
saw clearly, that if it be granted that Jesus Christ created 
- the world, it is impossible, without the greatest absurdity, 

to deny his Divinity. = 

Dr. B. alleges, that the Socinian objections relative to 
creation are directed against the sacred writers, not against 
the Arian system. I grant, indeed, that in order to make 
out their own scheme, the Socinians are obliged to explain 
away the plainest portions of the word of God. But I ne- 
vertheless believe, that the Socinian objections are not only 
directed against the Arian system, but Lam fully convinced 
they have levelled it to the dust. Arian principles, with — 
regard to creation, are utterly indefensible. Dr. B.’s dream, 
that Jesus Christ did not create the world out of nothing, 
but only formed, fashioned, arranged and ordered it, will 
not do.—It is not only a gratuitous assumption, but even 
were it proved true, it would afford its author no relief. He 
admits that the being of a God is proved by his works, and 
particularly by the work of creation.—No matter, accord- 
ing to his doctrine, whether by creation we understand the 
production of the world out of nothing, or only its organi- 
zation and arrangement. In his treatise on the Being and 
Attributes (p. 89), he writes thus : ‘© When we have recon- 
‘< ciled ourselves to this, we must recur to the interference 
« of the Eternal Spirit to organize the brute mass and put 
‘¢ jt in motion; acts, as far as we can tell, that may require 
‘¢ more power, as well as skill, than creation itself.” Now, 
supposing—though not granting—that God the Father cre- 
ated the world out of nothing ; and that Jesus Christ or- 
ganized the brute mass and put it in motion, what has the 
Doctor gained? Nothing at all.—Y¥ or Jesus Christ, by or- 
ganizing the brute mass and putting it in motion, has dis- 
played greater power (for any thing Dr. Bruce knows) than 
God the Father has displayed by producing it out of nothing ! 


85 


it follows, therefore, from the Doctor’s principles, that if 
God the Father has displayed his eternal power and God- 
head by creating the world out of nothing ; Jesus Christ 
has given as great, if not a greater, display of his eternal 
power and Godhead, by organizing the brute mass and 
putting it in motion. Thus it appears, that Dr. B. has fully 
established what he meant to subvert—the Supreme Deity 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. | 

_ Our author may now tell us, that angels, magistrates and 
idols are called gods—but I ask him, Of what one of these 
created angels, magistrates, or idols, is it said, “That he 
“«made all things’’—that « without him was not any thing 
“made that was made”—that « by him were all things cre- 
“ated, visible and invisible,” &c. ? Of what one of them 
is it said, that he either created the world out of nothing, 
or organized the brute mass and put it inmotion? Of what 
one of them is it said, that he is either the creator—preserver. 
~-saviour—or judge of the world? No creature in heaven 
or in earth is so represented. ' 
- What weakness, therefore, do Dr. B. and Anti-trinitarjans 
in general display, when they endeavour to run down the 
Supreme Deity of our blessed Redeemer, by telling us, that 
angels, magistrates, and idols are called gods! 


SECTION IV. 
Our Redeemer the object of ail religious worship. 


~ Tntimately connected with all peculiar works of Deity 
performed by our blessed and glorious Redeemer, ig that 
religious worship due to him by ail intelligent beings. Cre- 
ation itself is a sufficient foundation for religious Worship. 
(Rev. xiv. 7,) « Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and 
‘give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come : 
“and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the 
“sea, and the fountains of waters.”’—(Psal. xev. 6,) «© 
“come, let us worship and bow down ; let us kneel before 
““Jnnovar our Maker.” If Jesus Christ. is JEnovan, ag 
Dr. B. admits—if he is our Maker, as I have endeavoured. 


86 


—rus True Gop—rur onty Wise Gop—rue Most Hiew 
Gop—Over atu, Gop BLESSED For EveR—If he be OmnI- 
POTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIPRESENT, ETERNAL and ImmuT- 
aBLE—If he be our Crearor, PruserRver, Saviour, and 
Jvven—why should we hesitate for amomentto acknowledge 
him as the supreme object of our prayers, praises, and adora- 
tions? But;though for the worship of our blessed and glorious 
Redeemer we have sufficient reasons a priori—reasons the 
most powerful and convincing—yet these are not our only 
reasons. Ona subject of such great and paramount im- 
portance, the Scriptures afford us ‘* precept upon precept, 
‘¢ and line upon line.” Patriarchs and prophets, apostles 
and martyrs, Abraham and Jacob, Stephen and Paul, with 
the whole apostolic church—nay, the whole general assem- 
bly of saints and of angels, unite in the worship of our-glo- 
rious Redeemer. “Let all the angels of God worship him,’? 
ig the divine mandate. With this injunction they cordially 
‘comply: they cheerfully unite with the innumerable mul- 
titudes of redeemed above, in celebrating the praises: 
of God and the Lamb. (Rev. v. 11—14,) “ And 1 be- 
‘‘ held, and I heard the voice of many angels round about 
«¢ the throne, and the beasts, and the elders: and the num- 
‘© her of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and 
< thousands of thousands ; Saying with a loud voice, Wor- 
“thy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and’ _ 
‘riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, 
« and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven and 
‘¢ on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, 
«and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and ho- 
<¢ nour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon 
«the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever.. And 
‘‘ the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty el- 
<¢ ders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and 
«ever. That our blessed Redeemer is the proper object 
of religious worship, is a doctrine so clearly revealed in the 
sacred volume, as to extort the belief of ancient Anti-trini- | 
tarigns. Even Socinus himself believed the doctrine ; and 
some of the Arians still believe it. At present, however, 1t 
is denied by all Socinians, and, so far as I know, by Arians 
-in general. ‘These modern Anti-trinitarians are certainly 
‘more consistent than their predecessors. ‘T'o maintain that 
Jesus Christ is a creature, and at the same time to worship 
him as a god, is gross idolatry. It is painful, however, to 
think, that whilst modern Anti-trinitarians are more Consis- 


87 


tent with themselves, they are less consistent with the sacred 
oracles. The sacred oracles require, that all men should 
- honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. The Al- 
mighty himself says, ‘‘ Let all the angels of God worship 
‘“¢him,’’ but Dr. B. tells us, that he would say, ‘‘ See thou 
‘¢ doit not ; he is thy fellow servant, worship. God.”? In 
thus flatly contradicting his Maker, the Doctor endeavours 
to justify himself, by attempting to distinguish between civil 
and religious worship. He maintains that the worship en- 
joined in Scripture, and actually addressed to our blessed 
Redeemer, is not religious worship ; but only a kind of civil 
homage. This is the best defence Socinians or Arians can 
make ; but it will not do. Out of our author’s own mouth 
he will stand condemned. (Gen. xii, 7, 8,) ‘* And Jehovah 
** appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give 
“this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, 
“* who appeared unto him. And he removed from thence 
‘¢unto a mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his 
‘tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Hai on the east ; 
** and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called 
** upon the name of the Lord.’’—(Gen. xxvi. 24, 25,) “ And 
«¢the Lord appeared unto him the same night, and said, I 
“am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am 
_ with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed, for 
' **my servant, Abraham’s sake. And he builded an altar 
‘* there.” —(Gen. xxxv. 1—7,) “‘ And God said unto Jacob, 
‘< Arise, go up to Beth-el, and dwell there ; and make there 
*¢an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou 
-“fledest from the face of Esau thy brother. Then Jacob 
“said unto his household, and to all that were with him, 
“Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be 
‘clean, and change your garments : And let us arise, and 
“go up to Beth-el ; and I will make there an altar unto 
‘‘God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was 
“* with me in the way which I went.. And they gave unto 
*¢ Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and 
‘all their ear-rings which were in their ears; and Jacob 
_ “hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. © And 
*‘ they journeyed : and the terror of God was upon the ci- 
“ties that were round about them, and they did not pursue 
“after the sons of Jacob. So Jacob came to Luz, which 
“ds in the land of Canaan, (that zs, Beth-el,) he, and all 
_ ‘the people that were with him. And he built there an 
‘altar, and called the place El-beth-el ; because there God 


88 


‘appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his 
‘‘ brother.”.—In these. Scriptures we find the patriarchs 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, building altars to that God who 
appeared to them. But who was that God that appeared 
to them? Dr. B. will answer the question... He will tell us 
that it was not God the Father, who cannot become an ob- 
ject of our senses. He will acknowledge (for he cannot 
deny it without contradicting himself,) that it was the Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Angel of the Covenant, by whom the 
patriarchal and legal dispensations were conducted. Now, 
why were these altars built to our Lord Jesus Christ? Was 
it not for the purpose of religious worship ? Undoubtedly 
it was. The Doctor will not surely pretend, that these al- 
tars were built for the purpose of civil homage. The ab- 
surdity would be too gross and palpable. Out of his own 
mouth he stands condemned ; for altars were built, and, of 
course, religious worship performed, to that God who ap- 
peared to the patriarchs—to that God, who, according to 
his own acknowledgment, was the Lord Jesus Christ.— 
‘© God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Beth-el and dwell 
‘‘ there ; and make there an altar unto God that appeared 
‘¢ unto thee.’’ Had Dr. Bruce been present, he would have 
said, ‘*See thou do it not; he is thy fellow servant, wor- 
‘ship God.’’? God commands religious service to be ad- 
dressed to Jesus Christ; but Doctor Bruce forbids it !!— 
To all my readers I would say, whether it be right in the - 
sight of God, to obey the learned Doctor rather than God, 
judge ye. On this important subject let me ask a few ques- 
- tions. Was it. proper to address religious worship to Jesus 
Christ before his incarnation ; but not after it? Was Jesus’ 
Christ the proper object of religious worship in the days of 
the patriarchs, but not under the Christian dispensation ? 
Was it proper for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to worship 
the Redeemer with religious veneration ? and would it be 
improper for Dr. Bruce to address to him the same species 
of worship? Is Dr. B. wiser than the patriarchs ? Were 
they idolaters ? but he a worshipper of the true God ?—Is 
he wiser than God himself, who instituted and enjoined the 
worship of his Son ? . iI 
Prayers, as well as sacrifices, were offered to our Saviour 
in the age of the patriarchs. Jacob prayed to him -n behalf 
of the two sons of Joseph. (Gen. xlvii. 16.) ‘« The Angel 
«< which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.”” Who 
was this angel? Dr. B. will tell us, that it was the Ange] 


89 


‘ of the Covenant, tae Lord Jesus Christ. When the good 
old patriarch was blessing the two sons of Joseph, and wor- 
_ shipping his Redeemer, leaning on the top of his staff, had 
Dr. Bruce been present, he would have whispered in his 
ear, “«See thou doit not: hes thy fellow-servant; worship — 
‘““ God!” | : i oa 
Not only in the patriarchal age, but under the Jewish 

economy, it was the practice of the church to address reli- 
gious worship to our blessed Redeemer. He was the She- 
chinah.* It was his glory that filled both the tabernacle 
and the temple. Enthroned above the mercy-seat, and be- 
tween the cherubim, he received the religious worship of 
the Old Testament church. (Lev. xvi. 2.) “And the 
‘¢ Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, 
‘‘ that he come not at all times into the holy place within 
«¢ the vail before the mercy-seat, which ts upon the ark, 
‘‘ that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the 
‘““mercy-seat.”’ The same visible glory that filled the ta- 
bernacle, afterwards filled Solomon’s temple. That the 
Redeemer appeared in a visible form above the mercy-seat, 
in the temple as well as in the tabernacle, we have no rea- 
son to doubt. It was on this account that the Israelites, 
when praying, directed their facés towards the temple. To 
the Redeemer, as appearing in the cloud above the mercy- 
seat, as we see in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, the 
most solemn worship was performed, sacrifices were offered, 

and incense was burned. To him, as visibly enthroned be- 
tween the cherubim, were the prayers of the ancient church 
directed. Of these prayers, the eightieth Psalm is a beau- 
tiful specimen ; it commences thus: ‘ Give ear, O Shep- 
‘‘ herd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; 

‘*‘ thou that dweliest between the cherubims, shine forth. 

‘¢ Before Ephraim, and Benjamin, and Manasseh, stir up 


* Dr. B. (p. 298) fully admits the premises from which T reason, 
‘¢ Compare (says he) Isaiah, vi. throughout, with John, xii. 39, 40, 47, 
. “ Here John says, that the vision which Isziah saw in the temple, was 
** the glory of Christ; and that he spoke of him in that chapter. . Oa 
** this correspondence, H. Taylor, au thor of Ben, Mordecai, observes: 
“St. John has decided this question beyond all dispute, by declaring 
‘the glory which Iéaiah saw, and which was undeniably the glory of 
‘the visible Jehovah .to be the glory of Christ himself. The whole 
* account is descriptive of the Shechinah, or the mercy-seat between 
‘* the two cherubim, where the angel Jehovah used to appear.—Ben, 
“ Mordecai, p, 292.” bis, 
Q* 


90 


“« thy strength, and come and save us. Turn us again, O 
‘«« God, and cause thy face to shine ; and we shall be saved. 
‘©Q Lord God of Hosts, how long wilt thou be angry 
‘© against the prayer of thy people?” From this Psalm, 
compared with the ninety-first, and other portions of the 
Old Testament, it appears that it was Jenovan Gop oF 
Hosrs who was enthroned between the Cherubim ; who 
there met with his people, appeared to them, conversed 
with them, and received their religious homage and adora- 
tion. Now, that Jesovan Gov or Hosts, who thus ap- 
peared to the Israelites, and was worshipped by them, Dr. 
' B. himself being witness, could be no other than ouR 
piEsspp Ruprrmer. Whilst the church was thus worship- 
ping her Saviour, would Dr. B. have said, ‘‘See thou do 
‘it not: he is thy fellow-servant ; worship God?" 

‘By the New Testament church, from its very commence- 
ment, our blessed Redeemer has been uniformly worship- 
ped. As soon as he was born, the Eastern Magi fell down 
and worshipped him. When he calmed the sea, and caused 
Peter to walk on the water, those who were in the ship 
worshipped him. A leper worshipped him—a ruler wor- 
ghipped him—the Syrophenician woman worshipped him— 
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary worshipped him—the 
disciples worshipped him—Stephen prayed, ‘* Lord Jesus 
receive my spirit. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” 
The. Apostle Paul prayed to him three different times, that 
the messenger of Satan might depart from him. Praying to 
Jesus was the distinguishing characteristic of the primitive 
Christians. .Their denomination was, ‘‘ Those that call on 
the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Acts, ix. 14-21: 
- ViCor. i 2; 2°Tim. ii. 22 5; Rom. x. 12.) Pliny, a hea- 
then, in his letter to Trajan, (Anno Dom. 103,) describes 
the Christians as meeting on a certain day before daylight, 
and ‘addressing themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, 
as to some God.” No less than twenty times we find the 
inspired writers imploring grace, mercy. and peace from 
our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as from God the Father. 
The Apostle Paul prays to the Redeemer, not,only for the | 
removal of the thorn in the flesh, but also for various bless- 
ings. Thus (1 Thess. iii. 11, 12): “Now God himself 
‘+ and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our | 
«“ way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and 
«abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, 
‘* even as we do toward you.” That such prayers as these | 


91 


were only civil worship, Doctor Bruce, I presume, will 
scarcely venture to affirm. If all the prayers and praises 
addressed to our Redeemer amount to nothing more than 
civil homage, how are we to know when religious worship 


is performed? There is no stronger language expressive of | 


the worship of God the Father, than that which expresses 
_ the worship addressed -to the Son. The fact is, stronger 
language could not possibly be employed. (See Rev. i, 5, 
and v. 12.) How, then, did Dr. B. come to know that 
religious worship is due to God the Father, and only civil 
homage, or subordinate worship, to our blessed Redeemer ? 
He tells us, that corporations and magistrates are called 
worshipful, and accosted by the title of their worships ; but 
what corporation or magistrate was ever worshipped as our 


. blessed Saviour? Did God ever command to build an 


- 


* 


altar to a magistrate or corporation? Did he ever com- 
mand all the angels of God to worship a magistrate or cor- 
poration? Samuel was one of the best magistrates that 
ever ruled ; but would it not be blasphemy to say, ‘* Make 
‘*an altar unto Samuel ?”’—“ Let Samuel that redeemed 
‘* me from all evil, bless the lads ?”’—«« Let all men honour 
** Samuel as they honour the Father ?—«< Let all the 
** angels of God worship Samuel ?” 

The reader will now be able to judge, with what justice, 


_ truth, or candour, Dr. B. has made the following observa- 


tions (p. 126): “: There are, no doubt, several other texts, 
** on which very learned divines have relied with much con- 
“ fidence, and which have furnished matter for cumbrous 
** volumes, abounding with criticisms, which I should be 
-*¢ ashamed to expose to intelligent and unprejudiced men ; 
‘¢ for you could not refrain from smiling, when you heard 
‘“‘ the nature of the Supreme Being, and the faith and sal- 


‘« vation of Christendom, suspended on the transposition of ~ 


‘sa letter, or the construction of a particle, the insertion of 
‘* a dot, or the omission of some grammatical or rhetorical 
*© mark.” 

Now, I grant, that the first Presbyterian congregation in 
Belfast might smile at all this. How could they avoid it? 
The description partakes largely of the ridiculous. But if 
they really imagine that there is any thing in nature to 
which the picture is like, they are much deceived; and 

_ whilst they are smiling at the supposed folly and stupidity 
of Trinitarians, the latter are probably prepared to smile at 
their credulity. What! The nature of the Supreme Being 


ey: 


92 


suspended on'the insertion of a dot !—the nature of the 
Supreme Being suspended on the transposition of a letter ! 
——the nature of the Supreme Being suspended on the omis- 


sion of some grammatical or rhetorical mark !—Aand is it. ‘ 


by exhibiting such a picture as this, that the grave and dig~ 
nified Doctor Bruce hopes to raise the laugh against Tri- 
nitarians? Be it known to Dr. B.—be it. “known to the 
first Presbyterian congregation in Belfast—that, not upon 
dots, nor on letters, nor on the whole volume of revelation, 
nor on the heavens, nor on the earth, nor on any thing exte- 
rior to himself, do Trimitariane suspend the nature of God! 
Trinitarians maintain, that the Supreme Being is self-exist- 
ent and independent. Whilst raising the laugh against our 
neighbours, we should beware of rendering: ‘ourselves ridi- 
culous. 

Again; I would ask our learned sabtacaes ratte divine 


ever suspended the salvation of Christendom on the inser- 


tion of a dot? How ludicrous the fiction! What divine 
ever suspended the faith of Christendom on the insertion of 
a dot? With the ninth commandment before his eyes, how 
could our author write such a paragraph? By a careful 
perusal of the preceding pages, the reader, I trust, will be 
fully convinced that Trinitarians build the faith of Christen- 
dom, not on the insertion of dots, nor the transposition of 
eel as Dr. B. ridiculously insinuates, but on the broad 


basis of divine revelation. They will not, however, look on 


as indifferent spectators, whilst Socinians or Atians disfi- 
gure, mangle, or pervert the word of God, by an arbitrary 
insertion of dots, or transposition of letters. By such licen- 
tious treatment, unrestrained, the sacred oracles might be 
so manufactured as to patronise the most abominable errors, 
heresies, and blasphemies. __ 


_Trinitarians are so far from being reduced to the neces-. 


‘sity of suspending the faith of Christeudom on the insertion 
of dots, &c. that if a hundred of those texts, which prove 
the Divinity of Christ, were blotted out of the Bible, the 
remaining hundreds would be abundantly sufficient to esta- 
blish the doctrine. 


- 


93 


fe Gre RE tee y fed Reet ; oP OL eR 
fia ‘ oan a +r) eth 


i Oe ees Da 


SECTION Y. 


_ Antitrinitarian principles lead to consequences the most: _ 
490) absurd and blasphemous. 


_1. If Jesus Christ be not the Supreme God, the blas- 
phemous consequence follows, that he is not the true Mes- 
siah. 2 aR Ap 

__ One distinguishing characteristic of the true Messiah is, 

That he should abolish idolatry. (Isaiah ii, 18.) « And 
* the idols he shall utterly abolish.”” Now, if Jesus Christ 
be only a creature, he has not destroyed idolatry. On the 
contrary, Christians have been almost universally idolators 
——they have almost universally worshipped the Redeemer, 

whom Antitrinitarians maintain to be only a creature. If 

Antitrinitarian doctrines be true, Christianity is false.—In- 
stead of being a system from which idolatry is abolished, it 

is a most idolatrous system! Our blessed Redeemer, who 
was to abolish idols—I tremble as [ write—is himself the 
greatest and most. dangerous of all idols.—Nay, 

2. From Antitrinitarian principles, the still more blas- 
-phemous consequence follows—that God himself has led 
_ his creatures into temptation—temptation to that very sin, 
which above all others he hates and abhors——temptation to 
idolatry ! 'The Deity declares that he is ‘« a jealous God 3” 
that his “ glory he will not give to another, nor his praise 
** to graven images.” He most pathetically expostulates 
upon this subject, (Jer. xliv. 4.) ** Oh, do not this abomi- 
‘“nable thing, that I hate.” With what care does the Su- 
preme Being guard against all temptations to idolatry ? 
Lest the Israelites should worship the relicts of Moses, the 
Deity himself privately interred him, and “ no.man knoweth _ 
“‘ of his ‘sepulchre unto this day.” The brazen serpent 
also was destroyed, lest it should lead the Israelites into ido- 
latry, Now, if the Deity used such precaution to prevent 
men from worshipping the body of Moses and the brazen 
serpent, is it reasonable to suppose: that he would use no 
precaution, where the temptation was infinitely greater ? Is 
it reasonable to suppose that he would use no precaution, 
to prevent men from worshipping his Son, if only a crea- 
ture ? Reasonable, did Isay 2? Is not such a supposition 
in the highest degree absurd and unreasonable ? Not only 


94 


is there no precaution to prevent men ; but there is every 
temptation to induce them to worship the Redeemer. The 
most glorious names of the Deity are given to him; the 
most glorious perfections of Deity are ascribed to him ; the 
most glorious works of Deity are performed by him—those 
very works by which the being and attributes of God are 
proved—by which his eternal power and Godhead are ma- 
nifested—and by which he is distinguished from all false 
gods.—And, finally, he is every where represented as the 
object of the prayers of men, and of the united praises and 
adorations of all intelligent beings.—-What temptations to 
idolatry, if Jesus Christ be only a creature ! All the tempt- 
ations to idolatry that ever existed, compared with these, 
were nothing and less than nothing. If the healing of the 
stung Israelites was a temptation to worship the brazen ser- 
pent, how much greater the temptation to worship him who 
has removed the sting of death whichis sin? If the Jews 
were tempted to worship the inanimate brass, or the dead 
body of Moses, surely the inducements to worship the living 
Saviour are infinitely greater. _ a 

If the veneration attached to the memory of statesmen, 
patriots, and benefactors, proved a principal source of ido- 
latry, how much greater the temptation to worship him, to 
whom we owe all the inestimable blessings of Creation, 
Providence, and Redemption ? Jehovah is jealous of his 
glory. When, in praise of Herod’s oration the people.ex- 
claimed, <‘ It is the voice of a god and not of a man,’’ he 
was eaten with worms, and gave up the ghost—why ” 
‘¢ Because he gave not God the glory.’”” When Moses 
sanctified not the Lord before the people—when he arro- 
gated a part of the glory of a temporal and typical salvation, 
saying, ‘* Hear now, ye rebels, must we bring water out of — 
‘* this rock ?”’—he was ignominiously excluded from the © 
promised land——his carcass fell with the rebels in the wil- 
-derness. With such instances of divine jealousy before his 
eyes, can any man believe that Jesus Christ, if only a crea- 
ture, would be permitted to arrogate, with impunity, the 
glory of being not only the instrument, but the author, not — 
of a temporal and typical, but of eternal salvation? The © 
man who is able to believe all this, is surely more credulous | 
than he who believes, according to the Scriptures, that his 
Redeemer is ‘« Over all God blessed for ever.” For—in | 
a word: if Jesus Christ be only a creature, patriarchs, pro- 
phets, and apostles ; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (shall T _ 


95° 


utter the blasphemy ?) have all combined to lead men into 

_ 3. If the Socinian or Arian system be true, it. follows— 
That Mahomet was more successful than Jesus Christ in 
communicating correct ideas of the divine nature !—That 
Mahomet has been incomparably more successful than the 
Redeemer, in abolishing idolatry !—That Mahometanism is 
superior to Christianity !—and, That the Coranis superior 
to the Bible !* : 

If the Socinian or Arian doctrine be true, it follows, 
That God has no peculiar name, by which he may be distin- 
guished from his creatures !—That God has no peculiar at- 
tributz, by which he may be distinguished from his crea- 
tures !—That God has. performed no peculiar work, by 
which he may be distinguished from his creatures!—That 
God claims, or is honoured with, no peculiar worship, by 
which he may be distinguished from his creatures ! 

If the Arian doctrine be true, we have no proof of the 
being of « God, nothing to prevent us from plunging into— 
ATHEISM ! 

» 5. If Socinian or Arian principles be true, our blessed 
Redeemer, who made all things, may himself be fannihila- 
ted! If he be acreature, he that made him can surely un- 
make him—he that brought him out of a state of nonentity, 
can, with equal ease, reduce him to nothing! y 

. 6. Finally, if Socinian or Arian principles be true, may 
not the Redeemer fall ?—may he not be condemned like 
Satan ?—may he not be for ever miserable! My reader 
will pardon me for putting such blasphemous questions. 
They are naturally suggested by the errors I oppose. » 


* 


SECTION VI. 
Objections answered. 


_ To prove the inferiority of Jesus Christ to his heavenly 
Father, Dr. B. produces such texts as the following :— 
“<The Father is greater than 1.—Of myself I can do no- 
“* thing-—As the Father gave me commandment, so I do. 
*¢ My doctrine is not mine own, but his who sent me.—I 


_* See my tract in defence of the Divinity and Atonement of Jesus 
Christ in reply to Dr. Channing, | Pohae 


98. 
e 
« speak not of. myself; ‘but the Father who sent me gave 
‘¢ me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should 
‘* speak.”’—To bring forward such texts as these in this 
controversy—as Dr. “B. and Antitrinitarians in general do 
—is completely sophistical. It is that species of sophism 
which logicians style ‘* ignorantia elenchi,” or a mistake of 
the question.. When Dr. B. and his coadjutors crowd their. 
pages with such quotations, labouring to prove the inferior- 
ity of Jesus Christ to his heavenly Father, they are guilty 
of the most egregious trifling. They are labouring in vain, 
labouring to prove what nobody denies. Nobody denies 
that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father—inferior as he is 
man— inferior in his. official character as mediator. Soci- 
nians and Arians may, in future, save themselves the trouble 
of such quotations. In this controversy they prove just no- 
thing at all—nothing but what we all acknowledge, ne 
therefore, nothing to the purpose. peed 
Of those texts brought forwiurd to invalidate the Adethine 
of the Redeemer’s Divinity, that which presents the great- 
est difficulty is, Mark xii. 32, ‘‘ But of that day and that 
‘hour, knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in 
se heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.”” A more 
careful perusal of the passage would, I presume, convince 
Doctor Bruce that this text does not refer to the day of 
judgment, as he imagines, but to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. After rectifying this mistake, he will please toob- 
serve, thatno ‘Trinitarian ever believed that our Saviour, as 
man, was omniscient. His knowledge, as man, was pro- 
gressive. He advanced in wisdom, as well as in stature. 
‘To say, therefore, that, as man, he was ignorant of the time 
of Jerusalem’s destruction, is no way inconsistent with his 
omniscience as God. Besides : As the communication of 
the knowledge of that time formed no part of our Saviour’s 
commission—as he had no instructions to make it known— 
in this official sense, he might be said-not to knowit. Nor 
does the Doctor’s polite note (p. 301) convince me of the 
absurdity of this view. .“‘ Some account,” says he, « for 
‘«¢ our Saviour’s language. by charging him with duplicity,’ 
‘¢ similar to that which Calvinists impute to his Father.— 
‘¢ They allege that he denied, in his human capacity, or as’ 
‘* mediator, what he knew in his divine; and disclaimed in 
‘¢ one character, what he could perform in another. What 
‘«¢ should we think of a witness, who should first deny his 
‘‘ knowledge of a fact, and then confess that he knew it in 


97 


«his public character, but not in his private capacity 2?” 
That Calvinists impute duplicity to the Father is not true : 
nor does their interpretation of the above-cited text impute 
duplicity to the Son. We do not say, that the Redeemer 
knew the day and hour alluded to in his public capacity, but 
not in his private, as_ Dr. B. absurdly insinuates. We say 
the very reverse. Nor did our Saviour make the declara- 
tion in the capacity of a witness, as the learned Doctor stil] 
more absurdly insinuates, but in the capacity of a prophet, 
commissioned to reveal some events, but not all. Asa 
witness, he told the whole truth ; but not asa prophet. As 
a prophet, he revealed only those truths which he was com- 
missioned to reveal. To say, that we do not know ina 
public capacity what we know in a private, argues no du-. 
plicity—involves no contradiction. A member of the Synod 
of Ulster, in reference to a threat of Lord Castlereagh, ex- 
claimed in open court, “ Whois this Lord Castiereagh ? 
‘* We do not know Lord Castlereagh?” Did such a 
declaration involve the Synod in the guilt of duplicity ? 
Surely not. | 
_In opposing the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Doctor quotes 
Mat. xx. 23, “ But to sit on my right hand and on my left, 
‘isnot mine to give; but it shall be given to them for 
“ whom it is prepared of my Father.”? The English reader 
will perceive, that the words, “ it shall be given to them,’ 
_ are printed in Italics; which shews that there are no such 
words in the original; that they are only a supplement in- 
serted by our translators. Though our translators have 
done justice to the English reader by printing all their sup- 
plements in Italics ; and though their supplements are, in 
general, judicious ; there are some exceptions, and this is 
one. It completely destroys the sense of the passage. It 
represents our Saviour as having no power to reward his 
followers by assigning them places of honour and happiness 
in his kingdom. But this is quite contrary to the express 
declaration of Scripture. Atthe judgment of the great day, 
he will say to them on his right hand, “* Come ye blessed of — 
‘my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you before 
“* the foundation of the world.”—( Rev. iii. 21), “To him 
‘ that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne.” 
Leaving out the supplement, except the words «to them,”? 
the passage will read thus: «To sit on my right hand, and 
* on my left is not mine to give, except to them for whom 
“itis prepared of my Rea That our Redeemer has 


97 


power to give ‘seats in his kingdom, no person who reads 
the preceding quotations can doubt ; but to whom ? only 
to the elect—to those for whom the kingdom was prepared 
before the foundation of the world. ‘This gloss may not 
exactly please our author, who greatly abhors the doctrine 
of election. It appears, however, to be the only plain, 
natural, and consistent meaning of the passage. ‘ 
In reference to the commencement of John’s Gospel, 
the Doctor makes the following remarks: (p. 114), “ We, 
‘© therefore, feel no difficulty in applying the introduction 
«© of John’s Gospel to our Lord. ‘The Word was a celes- 
© tial being, and was with God in the beginning. ‘This is 
‘ intelligible ; but there is no sense in saying, ‘God was 
“¢ God, and was with God.’ ’’—I grant, indeed, there 1s ne 
sense in this; but who is guilty ofthe nonsense? Not the 
Evangelists : he says no such thing—Not the Trinitarian : 
he says nosuch thing. The nonsense recoils on the Doctor 
himself.—T'o substitute God for Word, and then, instead of 
‘The Word was God,” read God was God, is certainly 
very ingenious—it is an admirable specimen of that “ sleight 
*¢ of men and cunning craftiness,” whereby the simple are 
deceived. It is well calculated to confound and deceive 
- the man of plain understanding, unaccustomed to the arts 
of sophistry. ‘I'o point out and expose the fallacy and ab- 
surdity of such management, let us take asimilar proposition ; 
for instance, ‘‘ Elias was a man.” ‘This proposition is, in 
all respects, similar to that on which the Doctor shows 
his skill. «* Elias was a man,” and «« The Word was God,”’ 
are parallel propositions. If for Word, in the last propo- 


sition, the Doctor substitutes God—upon the very same 


principle, for Elias, in the first, I will substitute man: and 
then the two propositions will stand thus: God was God, 
and man was men. Now I agree with Dr B., that there 
ig no sense in such propositions. But, if by such reason- 
ing—I should rather say quibbling—he can prove, that 
Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God, by the very same 
logic I can prove—that Elias was not a man—that Dr. B. 
is nota man—and that there never was a man onthe face 
of this globe!!! Nor is it any contradiction to say—that 
Jesus Christ was with the Father. The Deity is in one sense 
one, in another sense three. In thatsense in which the Su- 
preme Being is three, there is no absurdity in representing 
the one person as dwelling with the other. agi 

The Doctor sees no difficulty, upon his scheme, in apply- 


98 


ing the introduction of John’s Gospel to our Lord. Is there 
no difficulty in the idea of a creature creating himself ?— 
and yet, this most absurd of all ideas, as we have already 
_ Seen, is inseparably connected with the Arian system. On 
Arian principles, Jesus Christ is one of the highest of the 
angels—let us call him Gabriel, and then John’s Gospel 
may be read thus:—‘‘In the beginning was Gabriel, and 
‘‘ Gabriel was with God, and Gabriel was God; all things 
*¢ were made by Gabriel, and without Gabriel was not any 
“« thing made that was made (of course Gabriel acted before 
‘* he existed, and made himself) ; and Gabriel was made 
_“ flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Socinian gloss is still 
more absurd ; for what sense in saying that “A man was 
made flesh ?”—How blind are men to the difficulties and 
absurdities of their own systems—systems to which they 
have been long attached—systems received by tradition 
from their fathers! 

Dr. B. affirms, that our blessed Redeemer expressly re- 
jected and disclaimed religious worship. He quotes our 
Saviour’s own words: “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
‘* God, and him only shalt thou serve.”’——Now, if Jesus 
Christ be ‘* The Lord our God,” how has he disclaimed 
religious worship? That our blessed Redeemer is « The 
Lord our God,” Dr. B. cannot consistently deny. He admits, 
that the personage who appeared to Moses in the bush, and 
gave the law from Mount Sinai, was the Redeemer. Now 
this glorious personage declared, (Exodus, xx. 2), 1 am 
** THE Lorp Tuy Gop, which have brought thee out of the 
*‘ land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.’’—Thomag 
also exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!’’—When we 
worship our Redeemer, therefore, we are worshipping 
‘‘rHE Lorp ovr Gop.’’ Peter refused religious worship— 
the angel refused religious worship—but our blessed Re- 
deemer never rejected nor disclaimed it; on the contrary, 
he taught it to be the duty of all men “to honour the Son, 
‘¢ even as they honour the Father.” | . 

Dr. B. alleges (p. 103) that Jesus Christ has marked a 
plain distinction between himself and the Almighty, in these 
words, ‘‘ This is life eternal, that they might know thee the 
‘only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 
We readily grant, that the Redeemer is here plainly distin- 
guished from his heavenly Father: but how ?—not in- 
respect of nature or essence, but in respect of his official 
clfaracter as ‘the sent of God.” . If by this text the Doctor 


99 


can prove, that Jesus Christ is not the true God, the same 
reasoning will prove, that God the Father is not the wise 
God.—In the Epistle of Jude, as we have already shewn, 
Jesus Christ is styled ‘‘ the only wise God ;’’ but does any 
person imagine that this excludes God the Father ?—So, in 
like manner, when the Father is styled ‘‘ the only true God,” 
should any person imagine, that this excludes his only be- 
gotten Son ?—by no means.—He is THe TrvE Gop AND 
ETERNAL Lirr. Jesus Christ is styled ‘ the only wise God,’’ 
and God the Father ‘‘ rue onty TRUE Gop,”’ not to the ex- 
clusion of each other, but to the exclusion of idols—* Little 
‘¢ children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.”’ 
From John, xvi. 23, «‘ In that day ye shall ask me no- 
“ thing,”? Dr. B. infers, that we should not address our 
prayers to the ReprrmEr. Now, this text has no reference 
to prayer at all, but only tothe questions put to our Saviour 
on difficult subjects. ‘This is evident from two things: 1, 
From the 19th verse, ‘‘ Now Jesus knew that they were 
‘¢ desirous to ask him,’”’? &c.—2, That our Saviour was 
speaking of questions on difficult subjects, and not of prayer, 
is evident from*this—That it is not. fact that his disciples 
after his ascension asked him nothing in prayer; for we 
have already seen that Stephen prayed to him—that Paul 
prayed to him—and that the apostolic church was in the con- 
stant habit of praying to him. The Doctor’s gloss would 
make our blessed Redeemer a false prophet. | 
In opposing the Divinity of Jesus Christ, Dr. B. seems 
principally to rely on those texts, in which he is styled the 
Son of God. In page 108, he writes thus: ‘“ The title 
«< which he commonly assumes, is that of the ‘ Son of God.’ 
«¢ This necessarily implies priority of existence, and supe- 
«« rjority of dignity on the part of his Father. He also styles 
‘«¢ himself « the only begotten Son of God.’ By this we are 
‘¢to understand his only Son, by way of pre-eminence ; 
“and also his dearest Son; as human parents are most 
«‘ tenderly attached to an only child. The word has often 
“¢ this signification in the original language, and is, there- 
‘¢ fore, tantamount to another appellation which our Saviour 
‘* assumes, the Beloved, and the Beloved Son of God. This 
‘‘ is the meaning of these phrases, and they imply, that he 
‘‘ is inferior in dignity, and subsequent, in point of exis- 
.“ tence, to the Father, and peculiarly dear to him. What- 
“ ever mysterious sense may be put upon them, it will still 
“ remain unquestionable, that a father must exist before hia 


# 
101. 


‘son, and the origin of the son, being a fact, must haye 
“‘ taken place, at some particular time, however remote, 
‘¢ The strictest asserters of the divinity of Christ, acknow- 
‘ledge him to be a derived being.””—Part of this para- 
graph is so ungrammatical and incoherent, that I have been 
obliged to abandon it as unintelligible. In language, howe 
ever, quite distinct and perspicuous, the Doctor maintains, 
that the phrase Son of God « necessarily implies priority 
‘‘ of existence, and superiority of dignity, on the part of 
‘¢ the Father.”’* In reply, I would offer the following ob- 
servations : 

1. Many Trinitarians do not believe in the doctrine of 
eternal generation. Though they believe that Jesus Christ 
is God equal with the Father, they do not believe that the 
appellation «« Son of God’? is descriptive of any eternal ne- 
cessary distinction in the divine nature, but only of a new 
covenant relation. According to this opinion, the Doctor’s 
reasoning has no force. It falls to the ground at once ; for 
all acknowledge, that as man and mediator, Jesus Christ is 
inferior to the Father. But, 

2. Viewing the epithets, father and son, as descriptive 
of an eternal distinction in the godhead, and of a natural 
and necessary relation, it does not follow, that worms of the 
dust are able to explain the nature of that relation. Our 
author, in his appendix, mentions Jwe Trinities.| Had he 


—e 


N 


* Dr. B. tells us, that itis not required of a son to equal his father, 
nor of a scholar to vie with his master, <A strange doctrine indeed, 
and far enough removed from that which teaches the perpetual perfect- 
ibility of man—if true, our world would soon be peopled with pigmies 
and Lilliputians. If the phrase Son of God proves, that the’ Redeemer 
was inferior to God, would not the phrase Son of man prove, that he 
was also inferior to man ? Would not this prove too much, and by con- 
sequence—nothing at all 2 . 

T Dr. B. in his appendix, mentions a variety of Trinities—the Cice- 
ronian, Platonic, Aristotelian, &c.—Now, what does all this prove ? 
It proves, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not peculiar to Christians, 
but is believed also by Heathens. Through all ages, and in almost all 
Heathen nations, it flows down through the corrupt channels of tradi- 
tion. This very circumstance is no contemptible proof of its truth. 
If the doctrine had not been originally revealed, on what principles of 
human nature could it have been propagated—by what means could 
it have obtained so wide a circulation ? But, as our author shows us 
in his appendix, Christians as well as Heathens, are divided on the 
doctrine of the Trinity. And what then? Does this prove that there” 

“18 no truth in the doctrine ? Surely not. Men are divided in their 
Opinions with regard to the chief good. On this subject there are up- 
- - Q* ‘ 


102 


wished to treat his opponents with respect, he would have 
said ‘‘ five different views of the Trinity.’”’ The fifth Tri- 
nity, he tells us, according to Bishop Stillingfleet, is the 
Trinity of the mobile, which is held by the common peo- 
ple, or by such lazy divines as only say, that it is an incon- 
ceivable mystery. Now, I must confess, that this fifth and 
last Trinity—this Trinity of the mobile or of the mob, as the 
word signifies—is the Trinity which I advocate. I confess 
myself one of those lazy divines, who say that the Trinity 
_is an inconceivable mystery—a mystery which cannot be 
explained. I believe in the Supreme Deity of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe that these are im one res-_ 
pect three, and in another respect one. I believe these 
facts; because they are revealed in the sacred volume. But 
how they are three, and yet but one, isa mystery. I believe 
nothing about it. [am required to believe nothing about 
it. Instead of attempting to ascertain the facts, divines 
have endeavoured to explain the now. In this I blame 
them. By attempting to explain what is inexplicable, both 
philosophers and divines expose their folly, and weaken 
their cause. It is one of the most important laws of mat- 
ter, that all heavy bodies tend to the centre. Butshould a 
philosopher attempt to explain the cause why they so tend, 
he would only expose his own ignorance and folly. Why 
does the magnetic needle point towards the north 2? What 
are the causes of its variation and dip? ‘* How do the bones 
‘¢ grow in the womb of her that is with child ?”? These, and ~ 
athousand other questions, all the philosophers in the world 
cannot answer. With as much justice and propriety may 
such philosophers, as do not pretend to explain the myste- 
ries of nature, be branded with the epithet lazy; as those 
divines are so nick-named, who do not attempt to explain 
the mystery of the Trinity. When Orthodox divines speak 
of the Son as derived from the Father, they use the term 
derived in a qualified sense, as applicable, not to his essence, 
but only to his personality. For my own part, however, I 
must confess, that I see no warrant for such a term at all. 
I dislike it. Ireject it; and I believe, that a great majo- 


ae 


wards of three hundred opinions. Is there, therefore, no chief good ¢ 
Men are divided in their opinions respecting the nature of virtue. _ Is 
there, therefore, no virtue ? . We will not follow the Doctor’s safe rule 
—we will not abandon the doctrine of the Trinity, because men are 
divided about it. 


® 


103 


rity of Trinitarians will agree with me. However the Doc: 
tor may reason and dispute about the meaning of the phrase 
Son of God,” one thing he cannot dispute, that the Jews -~ 
understood the phrase as implying, not inferiority to his 
heavenly Father, but equality. Upon this ground they 


stoned him, afterwards endeavoured to apprehend him,and __ 


finally crucified him, (See John. x. 31-40, compared with 
Matt. xxvi. 63-67.) When our Saviour, in the first of these 
passages, declares, «I and my Father are one,” Dr. B. and 
Anti-trinitarians in general contend, that this was not a one- 
ness of nature and essence. Asa parallel text, they quote 
John, xvii. 21, « That they all may be one, as thou Father 
** art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”’ 
They allege that Jesus Christ is one with the Father in no 
other sense, than that in which believers are one. To asu- 
perficial thinker, this may appear plausible enough ; but it 
will bear no examination. For, if our Saviour meant to 
say, that he was one with the Father only in the sense ‘in 
which believers are one—if this was the natural construc- 
tion of his words—why did the Jews consider him guilty of 
blasphemy ?—why did they take up stones to stone him ? 
dt is abundantly evident, that the Jews understood him as we 
understand him—as making himself equal with God. 

The same observations will apply to the phrase, ‘ Son of 
God.” -The Jews, who surely knew its meaning better 
than Dr. B., understood it not as implying inferiority to the 
Father, but equality. They expressly declare, that this was 
the reason why they stoned him—-that he, being aman, made 
himself equal with God ; because he said, I am the Son of 
God. On this ground they conceived him guilty of blas- 
phemy, and proceeded to inflict the penalty which the law 
of Moses attached to that crime. 

- Doctor Bruce, and other opponents of the Divinity of 
Christ allege, that our Saviour rectified this mistaken notion 
of the Jews, and disclaimed equality with the Father in the 
following terms : “ Jesus answered them, Is it not written 
*¢in your law, Isaid, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, 
* unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture 
‘“ cannot be broken ; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath 
** sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; - 
** because I said, I am the Son of God 2” In these verses 
our Saviour, so far from disclaiming, persists in asserting, 
his own Deity. He proves it by an argument from the less 
to the greater. If Jewish Magistrates, as types of the Re- 


\ 


‘ 104 
deemer, were denominated gods, why should the Deity of 
the antitype be denied ?. Why should he be regarded as a 
blasphemer for claiming equality with his heavenly Father ? 
That the Jewish magistrates were called gods, as they were 
types of our blessed Redeemer, is evident from the follow- 
ing parenthetical clause, ‘* And the Scriptures cannot be 
‘¢ broken.”? These words plainly show, that Jesus Christ . 
is styled God, not in conformity with the phraseology of the 
Jews, by which their magistrates were denominated gods ; 
but, on the contrary, that Jewish magistrates were so deno- 
minated, as types of him who is “ Over all, God blessed for 
«« ever.” The Scriptures cannot be broken. There must 
be an antitype answering to the types—a person who would 
think it no robbery or blasphemy to be equal with God. 
That our Saviour did not intend to disclaim his own Deity 
and equality with the Father, is evident from this—That, 
after his explanation, the Jews again sought to take him. 
This shows plainly, that the Jews understood the Saviour, - 
as we do, not as disclaiming, but asserting, his divinity. So 
far was the Redeemer from denying his own Deity, that he 
died a martyr to that doctrine. When the high priest ad- 
\jured him by the living God, to tell whether he were the Son 
of God, ‘“‘ Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said.—Then the 
“ high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blas- 
‘‘ phemy. What further need have we of witnesses? be- 
«¢ hold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What think ye ? 
‘¢ They answered and said, he is guilty of death.” The re- 
marks of our author, when reasoning with the Soeinians, 
are appropriate here. ‘¢ Neither,” says the Doctor, “ would 
‘¢ he (Jesus) have left the Jews under a misapprehension of 
« his meaning, when they said, How is it that he saith I 
«©came down from heaven. ‘The candour of our Lord 
«¢ would surely have induced him to undeceive them, if they 
‘¢ had misunderstood his words.’’—Now, I ask Dr. B., 
when Jesus Christ said, that he and +the Father were one, 
and that he was the Son of God; and when the Jews 
thought that these expressions were blasphemous, and that 
he, being a man, was making himself equal with God—if 
the Jews were mistaken in all this, as Anti-trinitarians say 
that they were, why did not the candour of our Lord induce 
him to undeceive them? Why did he give them such an 
ambiguous explanation, as left them still under misappre 
hensions—misapprehensions which induced them, first to 
attempt to stone him, and afterwards to crucify him ?—Ac- 


105 


cording to the doctrine of Socinians and Arians, our blessed 
Redeemer died “as a fool dies!” He was guilty of little 
less than suicide! 'The use of ambiguous language was the 
cause of his death! He had not so much candour as to in- 
duce him to undeceive the Jews! He had not sufficient 
candour to save his own life! His want of candour was 
the reason why he was first stoned and afterwards crucified! 


He was stoned for blasphemy ; he was crucified for blas--_ 


phemy ; and, upon Socinian and Arian principles, it would 
be impossible to acquit him of the crime ; for the language 
he employed conveyed the idea of his equality with God. 
By doctrine fraught with such absurdities, I had almost said 
blasphemies, do modern divines endeavour to explode—the 
-Supreme Deity of our blessed Redeemer! Upon the whole, 
it appears, that the phrase ‘* Son of God,”’ applied to our 
Saviour, is so far from proving his inferiority to the Father, 
that it is an invincible proof of his equality. When the Jews 
charged him with blasphemy for claiming this equality, he 
did not renounce the claim ; but, by boldly asserting it, he 
died a martyr to his own Supreme Deity. ; 
‘Dr. B., as we already noticed, condemns Socinians and 
‘Trinitarians, for the use they make of verbal criticism. He 
boasts, that the Arian scheme is so consistent and rational, 
that it requires no such aid. To convince him that this is 
only vain boasting, 1 would take the liberty of turning his 
attention to Phil. ii. 5, 12—that text, from which he has 
preached so long a sermon, in opposition to the Supreme 
Deity of our blessed Redeemer. «Let this mind be in 
** you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the 
** form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
‘© God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
«him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness 
‘of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he hum- 
‘«* bled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the 
‘death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly 
‘* exalted him, and given him a name which is above every 
““name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should 
** bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things 
*« under the earth: And that every tongue should confess 
_* that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” 
Now, what is the reason that Doctor Bruce did not attempt 
to reconcile this text to the Arian system, without the aid 
‘of verbal criticism? To this question only one answer can 
possibly be given. Hx couzp nor, Without the aid of 


106 


verbal criticism, all the Socinians and Arians in the world 
could not explain this single text. Without the aid of vers 
bal criticism, this one text would completely overturn and 
annihilate their systems. If Jesus Christ thought it no rob- 
bery to be equal with God, then he ‘was equal with God: 
and if he was equal with God, his Supremm Derry rests 
upon an immoveable basis, and the long existing contro- 
versy is for ever settled. Where is now the vaunted con-_ 
sistency and rationality of the Arian scheme—a scheme 
which, without the aid of verbal criticism, one single text 
would scatter to the winds, and totally annihilate ? So then, 
Dr. B. has recourse to verbal criticism. © Why ?—because 
he could not help it. The case was desperate. Without 
the aid of verbal criticism, his whole system would crumble 
into dust. Nor is this all:—to preserve his scheme from 
utter destruction, the Doctor was obliged to have recourse 
not only to verbal criticism, but to erroneous criticism. He 
tells us, that ‘«the word translated robbery, signifies any 
*¢ thing taken by violence, and particularly plunder taken 
‘from an enemy.’’ With great deference, I deny that the 
word has any such meaning. ‘The word cprayyc signifies 
any thing taken with violence, &c.; but it is not OLTOY Ol, 
which is translated robbery ; it is aprayuos, a word of a 
different signification—a word which signifies, not plunder, 
but the taking of plunder; and; therefore, literally and 
analogically translated robbery. 1 say analogically ; be- 
cause it is principally by the analogy of the language, that 
the true meaning of the word is ascertained. The same 
word does not occur in any other part of the New Testa- 
ment, nor in the Septuagint translation of the Old; and 
some maintain, that it does not occur in any of the profane 
authors. ‘This, however, appears to be a mistake. It is 
found in Plutarch, but not used in the sense given it by Dr. 
B. lt is there employed to signify the action, as our trans- 
lators understand it, and as the analogy of the Greek Jan- 
guage requires. The following, among many, are instances 
of this analogy: Zapauccw signifies to lacerate or tear ; 
from this is formed the noun oraeaywos, laceration or tear- 
ing, and drapayuo, the fragment or part torn off. From 
xodougw and xodagiZa, to purge, are formed the verbal nouns 
roboewos and xadagituos, both signifying purgation, or the 
act of purging; whereas xabupuc signifies the offscouring 
or filth. Under such circumstances, nouns terminating in 
Mos are not to be confounded with nouns in pa; the former 


107 


express the action, but the latter refer to the object or 
effects of the action. Nouns terminating in wos are not sy- 
nonymous with nouns in wa, but with nouns in 1s 5 xoborenog, 
xadapiewos, and xadueoic, are all synonymous—they all de- 
note the act of purifying. Proceeding on this plain prin- 
ciple of analogy, our translators have very judiciously and 
accurately translated apraypov, robbery. 

Before dismissing this disputed word, T must caution my 
reader not to be deceived by the bold and confident asser- 
tions of our author. In his appendix (p. 303), he confi- 
dently assumes what is not truae—* that all agree in his in- 
‘* terpretation of the word.” Hammond, M‘Knight, Ward- 
law, and all Trinitarians that I have consulted, (except 
one,) defend the received version, in opposition to the ~ 
Doctor. The writer which I have excepted, is Stuart of 
Andover, who says, «« Greek syntax would place the words 
‘* thus, as to their sense : Ux myntoro To sive oo bew (xoure) 
** domoywov.”? With great deference, I conceive that the 
learned professor is, in this instance, quite mistaken. Upon 
the principles of Greek syntax, the ellipsis cannot be sup- 
plied by xara ; but requires ewos. In addition to this, I may 
observe, that his objection to our translation is satisfacto- 
rily answered by Dr. Wardlaw. 

When it is said, that our Saviour thought it no robbery 
to be equal with God, the Doctor endeavours to explain 
away the force of the term equal, by telling us that the 
word soa, in the original, often implies only a near resem- 
blance. On this criticism I would make the following 
remarks : : ee 

1. It has never yet been satisfactorily proved, that the 
original word ever signifies, exclusively, likeness or resem- 
blance. The authorities produced by Dr. Whitby are in- 
conclusive. In every instance, as Wardlaw Observes, the 
word implies equality. 

- 2. Supposing the word ia to signify, not only equality, 
but also likeness, upon what principle does Dr. B. presume 
to lay aside the primary meaning of the word, and to adopt 
the secondary? Upon what principle can he do this, but 
upon the sophistical principle of begging the question ? 
Anti-Trinitarians, taking for granted the thing to be proved, 
That Jesus Christ is not equal with the Father, very mo- 
destly conclude, that the primary meaning of the word 
must bé laid aside, and a secondary one, agreeable to their 
own preconceived opinions, adopted ! ; 


108 


3. In the text under consideration, according to the 
Doctor’s own showing, the word cannot signify likeness or 
resemblance. All that he pleads for is, that the word 
‘often implies only near resemblance.” Now, upon the 
principle that Jesus Christ was only a creature, between 
him and the Deity there was no near resemblance. The 
~yesemblance between the rudest savage and Solomon the 
wise was infinitely nearer. Between a creature and his 
Creator, there is an infinite distance, and, consequently, the 
resemblance must be infinitely remote. — It is therefore evi- 
dent, that though the word may sometimes imply only near 
resemblance, this cannot possibly be the meaning of it 
here. The Doctor alleges, that the original word, if trans- 
lated equal, ‘+ would signify that God was equal to himself; 
<¢ or else, that there are two Gods.” But does he not 
know, that Trinitarians believe the Deity to be, in one re- 
spect three, and in another one? They do. not believe 
that there are three persons, and yet but one person; Or 
three Gods, and yet but one God; this would be a contra- 
diction ; but they believe that there are three persons, and 
yet but one God. Jesus Christ thought it no robbery to be 
equal with God. This proves, that he and the Father are 
two distinct persons; but not that they are two Gods, or 
that God is equal to himself. . 

From the phrases, “* form of God,” and “ form of a ser- 
vant,” the Doctor concludes, that Jesus Christ was not 
really a servant, but only resembled a servant ; and that he 
was not really God, but only resembled God. From the 
very same premises, I would draw the very opposite con- 
clusion. From the phrase ‘form of a servant,” and from 
our Saviour’s own words, «‘I am among you as one that 
serveth,’? are we to conclude that our Saviour was not 
really a servant? By no means. ‘The conclusion is con- 
tradicted by the following plain declarations of Scripture. 
Isaiah, xlii. 1: “‘ Behold my servant whom I uphold ;°— 
verse 19, ‘‘Who is blind but my servant?’ See also 
Isaiah, xlix. 6—lii. 13—Zech. iii. 8—Mat. xii. 18—xx. 28. 
After reading these Scriptures, will any person say that 
Jesus Christ only resembled a servant? Surely not. When 
he took upon him the form of a servant, he really became a 
servant. In the same manner, I conclude, that his being 
in the form of God implies, that he was really God. Both. 
his being in the form of God, and his thinking it no rob- 


109° 


bery to be equal with God, establish the same great point— 
dis Supreme Derry. be a a 
_ Dr. Bruce affirms, that the obvious meaning of our trans- 
lation would make Christ an example of selfishness and 
ambition. This bold assertion is a mere petttio principii— 
a barefaced begging of the question. It takes for granted 
what remains to be proved, and what is denied by all, but 
Anti-trinitarians. It takes for granted, that Jesus Christ is 
only a creature. Now, if this hypothesis were true—if the 
vedeemer were only a creature.‘ To think it no robbery 
** to be equal with God,” would make him not only an ex- 
ample of selfishness and ambition, but of the most horrid 
impiety and blasphemy !| The Anti-trinitarian hypothesis, 
however, has never yet been proved, and, I presume, never 
will. This text alone, notwithstanding the violent attempts 
to pervert it, will for ever prove an insuperable barrier. 
Anti-trinitarian comments explain away all the beauty and 
force of the passage. On their principles, where is that 
exalted virtue displayed in the humihation of Jesus; If 
Jesus was only a man—a carpenter’s son—as Secinians 
contend, where was his humiliation ? According to the 
_ Arian scheme, Jesus Christ was only a creature—a super- 
angelic being—a being bound by the law of God—bound to 
obey his heavenly father. When his father commanded him 
to humble himself, had he refused, he would have been a 
rebel, a fallen angel, as bad as Satan, if not worse! When 
he obeyed, he was only an unprofitable servant !—he had 
only done that which it was his duty todo. His obedience 
was only a debt, and could lay the Deity under no obliga- 
tion to confer favours, either on himself, or on any of the 
human family. He had nothing of his own—nothing which 
-he had not received—his sacrifice was not his own—he had 
no merit—no ground of boasting. He had no- liberty to 
“save his own life, without incurring the guilt of the most 
horrid impiety, rebellion, and apostacy—without becoming 
a fallen angel! Where is then that exalted virtue, which 
has kindled into rapture prophets and apostles, men and 
angels, the whole blessed creation? The Arian hypothe- 
Sis sinks into WOthing.. sai a vee was et CLR 
On the other hand, according to the Trinitarian scheme, 
the text exhibits an astonishing, an overwhelming display 
of generous disinterested benevolence, humility and con- 
déscension... It exhibits an example worthy of the imitation 
of men and of angels—worthy of the admiration and praise 
10 


: 


110 


of all intelligent creatures! Oh! that he who writes, and 
they who read these pages, may be able to comprehend, 
with all saints, what is the breadth and length, and depth 
and height ; and to know the love of Christ, which passes 
knowledge, that they may be filled with all the fulness of 
Gods «: wa y sep ea 


ey 


CHAPTER IV. 


Of the Supreme Deity of the Holy Ghost. 


- Havrine in the preceding pages endeavoured to establish 
the Divinity of our blessed Redeemer, and to refute those 
arguments by which Dr. B. has assailed that doctrine, I 
proceed now to make a few observations in defence of the 
Surreme Derry or rue Hoty Grost. The Doctor boasts 
of the Arian system, as rational and consistent—as quite 


4 * 

* Intimately connected with our Saviour’s taking upon him ‘the 
< form of a servant,” is that text in the Hebrews, “ He took not on him 
the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.”’—Dr, B. very proper- 
ly remarks, that such phrases would be totally inapplicable to @ mere 
man, who could have no power to take on himself the nature of atigels 
—but he quite forgets, that such phrases are no less inapplicable to an 
angel, or the highest of angelic beings. How could an angel, or the 

highest of angelic beings, take upon himself the nature of angels? If 
he were originally possessed of their nature, how could he assume it ° 
The text is equally inconsistent with the doctrines of Socinians and 
Arvians. For what consistency, or what sense, in talking of a man 
taking upon himself the nature ef a ian, or an angel taking upon 
himself the nature of an angel? Dr. Price, perceiving such phraseology 
to be grossly absurd, is forced to recur to verbal criticism—to false cri- 
ticism. His translation, designed to supersede the authorized version, 
runs thus :—* He helped not the nature of angels.” This translation 
of the verb ereaxuGaverois quite of a piece with Dr. B.’s translation of 
the noun ‘zeray~cy. Dr. Bruce affixes the meaning of “agrayme to 
‘apraymos; and Dr. Price affixes the meaning of avtthauCavoees to ext 
rAnpGayoruat; and by this simple operation of affixing the meaning of 
‘one word to another, do these learned Doctors contrive to evade the 
forceof troublesome texts, and to preserve from destruction their favour- 
ite system. They deprecate verbal criticism, and pretend to be wil- 
ling to abide by the received version.—I say pretend; for itis nothing © 
but pretence. They are not willing to abide by it; they CANNOT 
abide by it, and advocate Arianism. ‘They appeal to criticism inevery 
case of extremity, and to such a species of eriticism, too, as would en- 
able them to bring any meaning out of any tet. 


111 


free from the difficulties attending the systems of Trinitari- 
ans and Socinians—as clogged with no difficulties of its 
own, except such as must attach to any sujernatural inter- 
position. To me, I confess, that system appears in a quite 
‘different light. It appears to,me unscriptural, unreasona- 
ble, inconsistent, and clogged with difficulties altogether in- 
superable. The correctness of this view will appear from 
the doctrine of that system, not only respecting the Son of 
God, but also respecting the Spirit of all grace, the Holy 
Ghost. Arians, in their view of the Blessed Spirit, arenot 
only inconsistent with the Scriptures ofdruth, but with each 
other. Some of them believe, that he is neither God, nor 
- angel, nor man, nor any being at all, but only the power, 
wisdom, or influence of the Deity. Others again (and 
among those Dr. B. though he speaks entirely in the lan- 
guage of scepticism and doubt,) believe that the Holy 
Ghost is a creature inferior to our Blessed Redeemer. The 
hypothesis of those who deny the distinct personality of’ 
the Holy Ghost, is full of absurdity. And yet, to maintain 
his personality, but deny his Supreme Deity, appears to 
involve much contradiction, perplexity, and confusion. The 
works peculiar to God are ascribed, in Scripture, to the 
Blessed Spirit. In the work of creation he is represented 
as a principalagent. He “ moved upon the waters,’ Gen. 
i. 2, He “garnished thé heavens,” Job, xxvi. 13, He 
**made man,” Job, xxxiii. 4. In the new creation, also, 
he is a principal agent. He regenerates the natural world, 
Psal. civ. 6, ‘Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are cre- 
“ated; and thou renewest the face of the earth,’’ He 
regenerates the moral world, Tit. ili. vy. «< According to his 
“mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and . 
“* renewing of the Holy Ghost.’’ In the resurrection of the 
dead he will be a principal agent, Rom. viii. 11, “* But if 
‘the Spirit-of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell 
‘in you, he. that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also 
-* quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in . 
‘you.”’ These, and many other works of God are as- 
cribed to the Blessed Spirit. According to the Scriptures, 
God stretched forth the heavens alone, and spread abroad 
the earth by himself ; but according to the system of Doctor 
B,, he did not create the heavens and the earth alone, or by 
himself, but by a created instrument, Jesus Christ. his 
is not all: From the preceding Scriptures, it appears, that 
God did not create by the subordinate instrument alone; but 


112 


by another instrument still lower—by the Holy Ghost. 

Arians maintain, that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father, 

and the Holy Ghost inferior to Jesus Christ. From these 

premises it follows, that, in the work of creation, Jesus 

Christ was an instrument in the hand of God; and the Holy 
Ghost a subordinate instrument in the hand of Jesus Christ 

—so that the work of creation was performed by the in- 

strument of an instrument—the servant of a servant! The 

work of creation was performed by a creature, the Holy 

Ghost! This creature was created by another creature, 

Jesus Christ ! !—which last creature CREATED HIMSELF! !! 

Such appears to me the legitimate and native consequences 

of the Arian system—of that system which is extolled for 

its reasonableness and simplicity! Should Arians attempt 

to evade those absurd consequences, by denying that the 

preceding texts refer to the Holy Spirit taken personally— 

should they even succeed in making their escape by such an 

evasion—still I would ask the following questions :—How 

is the Redeemer’s superiority to the Holy Ghost consistent 

with his being conceived in the womb of the virgin by the 
power of the Holy Ghost? What! conceived by the 

power of a creature inferior to himself, conceived by the 

power of his own creature ! The Redeemer was honoured 

by the descent of the Holy Ghost at his baptism. The 

Holy Ghost anointed him, and qualified him for his medito- 

rial offices and work. He wrought his miracles by the 

power of the Holy Ghost. How are these things consistent 

with the inferiority of that Blessed Spirit? The Holy Spirit 

raised our Saviour from the dead—he was ‘ quickened by 

the Spirit.”? How is this consistent with the Holy Spirit’s - 
inferiority? Finally; how is the inferiority of the Holy 
Ghost consistent with the unpardonable sin? Mat. xii. 
31, 32, ‘* Wherefore, I say unto you, all manner of sin and 
* blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy 
‘‘against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 
«« And, whosoever speaketh a word. against the Son of 
‘< Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh 
‘against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
‘¢ neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”’ 

The force of this text, asit strikes against the Arian sys- 
tem, Doctor B. endeavours to evade, by asserting—that the 
Holy Ghost was not then given; or rather by insinuating 
—that he did not at that time exist ! He writes thus :— 
“The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, so awfully de- 


718 


**nounced by our Lord, was an obstinate and wilful inere- 
 dulity in his miracles; and particularly, the imputation of 
*«them to the agency of evil spirits. It cannot signify de- 
“«nying the personality of the Holy Spirit; for St. John 
“tells us, that the Holy Ghost was not given (given is 
“added by the translators) till Christ was glorified ; and, 
‘«long after that event, the disciples at Ephesus had 
“not so much as heard, whether there were any Holy 
“* Ghost.” 

_ This evasion will not do. The futility and weakness of 
it will appear from the following observations: 1, In this 
passage, as in many other parts of his book, the Doctor is 
careful to refute what nobody maintains. He says, that the 
text quoted above «cannot signify denying the personality 
“ of the Holy Spirit.” Who imagines that it signifies this ? 
Nobody I presume. Doctor.B. would save himself immense 
trouble, if he would not make so many men of straw. God 
forbid that the sin against the Holy Ghost should signify 
the “denying of his personality !”’—if it did—wo, wo, 
would be to the great majority of Antitrinitarians—they 
would be all guilty of the unpardonable sin! Doctor B. 
asserts, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was an 
obstinate and wilful incredulity in the Redeemer’s miracles. 
Passing over the innate absurdity of the phrase “ incredu- 
«lity in miracles,” would our author examine the passage 
more minutely,* I presume he would find that he is quite 
mistaken. The blasphemy against our Saviour—the impu- 
tation of his miracles to the influence of evil spirits—was 
forgiven. ‘* Whosoever,” says the Redeemer himself, 
“shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be 
forgiven him.’ For those Jews who thus blasphemed him, 
and afterwards crucified him, he fervently prayed, ‘ Father, 
“forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The 
prayer was heard. When charged with the murder of the ~ 
Lord of Glory, they were pricked in their hearts—they 
looked on him whom they had pierced and mourned—they 


_.* Faith in miracles is intelligible, but credulity in miracles is absurd. 
The philologist will perceive the reason: he will see, that faith, being 
‘An act of the mind, is transitive, and admits an object; whereas credu- 
‘lity, being not an aet,but a disposition of the mind, is intransitive, and 
does not admit an, object. If, therefore, credulity in miracles is not 
se as equally absurd, if not more so, is the phrase & incredulity in 


10* 


114, 


exclaimed, ‘‘ What shall we do to be saved ?”’-they were 
directed to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ—they embraced 
the glad tidings, believed, and were enrolled among his 
disciples. It appears, therefore, that the imputation of our 
Saviour’s miracles to the influence of evil spirits was not 
the unpardonable sin. ‘He hath an unclean spirit”— 
‘«‘ He casteth out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils,” 
were words spoken against the Son of Man. Such words, 

our Saviour himself declares, should be forgiven; and, we 
have reason to believe, that they were actually forgiven. 
But he assures us, that if any one should speak against the 
Holy Ghost, it should never be forgiven him. The Doctor 
observes, that the Holy Ghost was not then given. Very 
true ; nor did the sin mentioned respect present, but future 
communications of the Holy Ghost... It respected the mira- 
culous gifts of the Holy Ghost after the Redeemer’s resur- 
rection. An important question may be here put. Why 
was the blasphemy against our Saviour forgiven, but that 
against the Holy Ghost unpardonable ? I answer, Because 
the miracles wrought by the Holy Ghost, after the ascension 
of Jesus Christ, were the last and most powerful attesta- 
tion of the truth of Christianity. The opposition given to 
our. Lord and his miracles proceeded principally from igno- 
rance. To this cause we may trace even his crucifixion. 

‘¢ Brethren,’’ says Peter, ‘‘ I wot. that through ignorance 

‘¢ ye didit, as did alsoyour rulers.” ‘‘ Had they known him, . 
*‘ they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory’’—and, ~ 
I may add—that they would not have blasphemed him, nor 
imputed his miracles to diabolic influence. The miracles 

wrought. by the power of the Holy Ghost, after our Savi- 

our’s ascension, were far more glorious and convincing than 
those wrought by.our Saviour himself. This our Redeemer 

had (John, xiv..12,) predicted, ‘‘ Verily, verily, I say unto 

“you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall 
‘‘he do. also; and greater works than these shall he do ; 

‘* because I go unto my I‘ather.’’ In opposing the Supreme 

Deity of the Holy Ghost, one of the Doctor’s arguments is, 


that. the Redeemer appeals only to two witnesses, himself 


and his Father—* that the Holy Spirit was none of his wit- 
‘‘nesses, for in this case he would have been supported by 
“three ; and the third would have been more unexception- 
‘able than himself.’ Now, the fact.is, that he actually did 
‘appeal to this third, and most unexceptionable witness. 


(John, xv. 26) «* But when the Comforter is come, w. 


415 

‘will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of 
“truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify 
‘of me.” He appealed to this witness, but did not actu- 
ally bring him forward till after his own ascension. Why ? 
A very satisfactory reason can be given. Had the third 
_ and most unexceptionable witness been produced before his _ 
crucifixion, he would not have been crucified at all. By the in- 
fluence of this witness, the Jews would have been convinced 
that Jesus was the true Messiah ; and “ had they known him, 
‘« they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” Dr. 
B. would have doubtless produced the third witness—and 
what then ? By this circumstance he would have completely 
counteracted the design of our Saviour’s mission, and dis- 
Concerted the whole plan of Redemption. ° But the foolish 
ness of God was wiser than Doctor B. As our Saviour 
came in the fulness of time, so also did the Holy Spirit. 
He gave in his testimony when it was calculated to produce 
the best effect—he gave it on the day of Pentecost—he 
appeared in the form of cloven tongues as of fire—he 
Wrought a miracle more glorious and convincing than had 
ever been wrought before. He appeared a more unexcep-. 
tionable witness than either the Father or Son, who were 
appealed to before our Saviour’s crucifixion, When his 
testimony was rejected, there was no fourth witness. To the 
obstinate and wilful despisers of Christianity, there re- 
mained nothing but a certain fearful looking for judgment ; 
and this, I humbly conceive, isthe reason why the blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost could not be forgiven, neither in 
this world, nor that which is to come. The first witness - 
was the Father , the second witness was the Son, the third, 
last, and, as Dr. B. admits, the most unexceptionable wit. 
ness, was the Holy Ghost. When the testimony of the 
Father was rejected, then additional evidence was afforded 
in the testimony of the Son; and when the testimony of 
the Son was rejected, additional evidence was afforded in 
the testimony of the Holy Ghost ; but, when the testimony 
of the Holy Ghost was tejected, there was no additional 
evidence. Those who rejected his testimony, blaspheming 
his person and miracles, sinned against the clearest light, 
wilfully resisted the most powerful evidence, and so. cut 
themselves off from all hopes of forgiveness. Pe 

. The-reader will now judge of the truth of the following 
assertion made by Dr. B. (p. 121,) “ By this he (the Re- 
“‘ deemer) declares—that the Holy Spirit was not one of 


116 
4 

‘his witnesses.”’ The Redeemer declares no such thing. 
The Redeemer declares the very reverse. (John, xv. 26,) 
‘«* But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto 
‘you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which pro- 
« ceedeth from the Father, be shall testify of me.” Fhe 
Apostles declare the very reverse. (Acts, v. 32,) * And 
‘we are his witnesses of these things ; and so is also the 
* Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey 
< him.”” mane 08 
When the declarations of Dr. B. thus flatly contradict 
those of our Saviour and his Apostles, the reader will know” 
how to treat them. He will perceive with what weapons 
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is assailed. He will see how 
little reason the Doctor has to boast, that his book “1s con- 
*‘ sistent with itself and the Gospels.” 

Another argument brought forward by our author against 
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, is—that ‘‘ he is very often 
‘< omitted when the Father and Son are mentioned.” In 
teply, I would observe : 1, That this is only, at best, an ar- 
gument (ad ignorantiam) addressed to our ignorance. Were 
we intimately acquainted with the Scriptures, we would see 
—as we have already seen in the preceding instance—that 
there are wise reasons for all such omissions. oo 

2, Sometimes the Father is omitted, when the Son and 
Holy Ghost are mentioned. According to the Doctor’s lo- 
gic, these cases would prove—rTHat THE F'ATHER HIMSELF 
IS NOT A DIVINE PERSON! 

As an additional argument against the Divinity of the 
Holy Ghost, Dr. B. asserts, that he is never styled God in 
the New Testament. I answer: 1. If he be so styled in 
the Old Testament, it is quite the same. ‘“ Tue Braxz, 
«“ pie BIBLE, IS TIE RELIGION OF TRINITARIANS.”? We 
will not suffer Dr. B. nor any Anti-trinitarian in the world, 
to confine us to the New Testament, much less to the 
Gospels. | 

2. We do not admit the fact, that the Holy Ghost is ne- 
"yer, in the New Testament, styled God. In Acts, v. 3, 4, 
lying to the Holy Ghost is styled lying to Gop. The Corin- 
thians were denominated “ the temple of God ;” because 
they were temples of the Holy Ghost. (1 Cor. iii. 17, and 
vi. 19.)—All Scripture was given by inspiration of Gop ;_ 
because “ holy men of God spake as they were moved by 


the Hory Guosr.” (2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet.i. 21.) 0 | 


117 
* 4 
_ 3. Should Anti-trinitarians sueceed in evading these and 
similar Scriptures—should they succeed (which they will 
never do) in proving, that the Holy Ghost is never styled 
God, neither in the New Testament nor in the Old—still, I 
would ask, Why should all this be regarded as a valid ar- 
gument against his Divinity? Were the Holy Ghost styled 
God, as I believe he is; either the Doctor would consider 
this-a proof of his Divinity, or he would not. If he would 
——Why does he not admit the Divinity of Jesus Curisr, 
who is confessedly styled God? If he would not-—W hy 
should he consider the want of this epithet an argument 
against his Divinity? Why should he require’ us to pro- 
duce a proof, which, if we were to produce, he would im- 
mediately turn round and say, ‘« This is no proof at all; 
*« for even angels and magistrates are styled gods.’’? Thave 
already called upon Dr. Channing in a similar case—I now 
eail upon Dr. B.—I call upon all the Anti-trinitarians in 
the world to show the consistency of such demands with 
‘common candour, common honesty, or common-sense. If 
the Holy Ghost is not styled God ; this is an argument 
against his Divinity—if he is styled God ;. this is no proof 
in favour of it! What species of proof would satisfy such 
reasoners ? 
- The Doctor again argues, “ that the Holy Ghost is not 
‘dignified with any of those titles usually ascribed: to the 
“ Almighty.”’ In this, also, he is completely mistaken. Ig 
not the Holy Ghost styled (Heb. ix. 14,) tun Erernan 
Srrmir ? Is he not dignified with the title of the Hienesr ? 
(Luke, 1.35.) Inaword: Are not the names, attributes, 
works, and worship, that are proper to God only, ascribed 
to the Hoty Guosr? The same arguments which prove 
the Divinity of the Son, prove also the Supreme Deity of the 
Blessed Spirit. Hence the reason, why divines, in general, 
do not insist so much on the latter, as the former. If our 
author imagine, as he seems to insinuate, that the brevity 
with which the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost 
is sometimes treated, is to be attributed to the want of evi 
dence, he is much mistaken. His attack is brief; hence- 
the brevity of the present defence. Should he take the field 
again, and enter more largely into the controversy, he will 
then see whether there be not, in the sacred volume, accu- 
Mulated evidence of the truth of the doctrine, I 
- Against the Supreme Deity of the Blessed Spirit, our 
author, still farther argues thus: (p. 121,) ‘* It appears from 


118 - 


‘«¢ a remarkable declaration of our Lord, that the Holy Spi- 
‘« rit knew neither the Father nor the Son: No man know- 
«eth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the 
‘« Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
‘¢ him: for no man is, evidently taken in an indefinite sense 
‘« forno one, being applied to the lather and the Son.” Now, 
if by this reasoning the Doctor has proved, that the Holy 
Ghost knows neither the Father nor the Son, by the very 
same logic can Pouca ah I utter the blasphemy?— That 
the Father does not know himself! In our translation of 1 
Cor. ii. 1, it is asserted, that no man—in the original 
‘ovdsis, no one—knows the things of God, but the Sprrrr or 
Gov. Now, if the Doctor’s reasoning be correct, the blas- 
phemous conclusion follows, that the things of God are not 
known by Gop HiMsELF, but only by the Hoty Guost ! 
How weak must that system be, which requires such rea- 
soning to support it! Had the Doctor compared Scripture 
with Scripture, he might have plainly perceived, that the 
Holy Ghost is so far from being ignorant of the Father 
and Son, that the sacred oracles represent him, not only 
as omnipresent, (Psal. cxxxix,) but as omniscient, (1 Cor. 
ii. 10,) ‘* Searching all things, yea, the deep things of 
“ God.”’ 

I would conclade this article by the following questién : 
How can the form of baptism, or the apostolic benediction, — 
be reconciled with the Arian system? What! baptize in 
the name of God and two creatures! in the name of God 
and two servants, the one inferior to the other! I baptize 
thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, his servant, 
and of the Holy Ghost, an inferior servant !—the servant 
of a servant !—the creature of acreature! Such, when 
analyzed, is the Arian baptism. On the same principles of 
analysis, the Arian benediction will run thus: The grace of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, a creature of God, a servant of the 
Deity, and the love of God—and the communion of the » 
Holy Ghost, a servant of Jesus Christ-—a servant, of a ser- 
vant! be with you all, Amen ?—Dr. B. is fully convinced, 
that the Holy Ghost is not one with the Almighty. He 
assures us, he has no doubt on this subject. One should 
suppose that such strong conviction must be founded on | 
strong arguments. Whether this be the case, let the reader _ 
now judge. Let him judge whether the arguments, by 
which the Arian system is supported, be not extremely 
weak, and the difficulties with which it is clogged, altoge- 
ther insurmountable, 


119 
SRE DSS 


He bbaeet) 14 
Bes 


CHAPTER V. 
The Atonement defended. 


SECTION I. 
The necessity of it proved. 


_ IntimaTery connected with the doctrine of the Supreme 
’ Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost, is that of the Atonement. 
Those, therefore, who deny the one, generally reject the 
other. Indeed, the Atonement cannot be consistently main- 
tained, if the doctrine of the Trinity is rejected. hese 
twin doctrines refuse to be separated ; they must stand or 
fall together. A denial of the doctrine of the Trinity spreads 
darkness over all the other doctrinés of the Gospel. Ac- 
cordingly, Dr. B. regards the connexion which the death of . 
Christ bears to the work of redemption, as a subject full of 
darkness and difficulty. He seems greatly puzzled to know, 
whether the death of the Re cemer were necessary ; and, 
after much hesitation, determines in the negative—that it 
was not indispensably necessary, and that our redemption 
might have been effected without it. 1 confess, that I am of 
a quite different opinion. 1 firmly believe, that sin could 
not possibly be pardoned, and that men could not possibly 
be saved, without a satisfaction—without the penalty of the 
law operating on a substitute. My reasons are the follow- 
ing :— 

50 All the perfections of Deity are opposed to the pardon 
of sin without a satisfaction. (See Dr. B. page 50, 51.) 
_ 1. The truth of God forbids it. Tn the threatening at- 
tached to the violation of the Covenant of Works, God 
pledged his truth and veracity. ‘In the day thou eatest 
_ ‘thereof, thou shalt surely die2?_ Satan arraigned the truth 
of the Deity. God said, « Thou shalt surely die ;’? but 
Satan said, «« Thou shalt not surely die.” Were God to 
pardon sin without inflicting the penalty, Satan would be 
true, and the God of truth a liar! Because men do not 
‘claim the fulfilment of threatenings, as they claim the fulfil- 
‘Ment of promises, Archbishop Tillotson ‘and others con 
‘elude; that God is. not obliged to fulfil his threatenings, 


120 


This is ingenious, but completely sophistical, and extreme- 
ly dargerous. Is not God obliged to tell the truth? Un- 
doubtedly. Truth therefore demands, that the threatening 
of the law should be fulfilled, and the penalty inflicted. 

2. The knowledge of God is opposed to the pardon of 
sin without a satisfaction. ‘The language of sin is, “ How 
‘¢ doth God know, and is there knowledge in the Most 
« High 2?” God hath forgotten, he ndeth his face ; he will 
never see it. The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God 
of Jacob regard it. Shall sin be permitted thus to insult 
with impunity the knowledge of God? Surely not. is 
_ 3. The Holiness of God opposes the pardon of sin with- 
out a satisfaction. Holiness is that aitribute, by which the 
Deity hates sin. Fire and water are not more opposite than 
sin and holiness. The language of sinners is, that God is 
nota holy being—that he is ‘+ altogether such an one as 
‘¢ themselves’’—-that ,he is ‘‘ a God that hath pleasure in 
‘¢ wickedness’’——that ‘evil shall dwell with him?’—and that 
‘« the foolish shall stand in his sight.’? Now, if ‘sin thus 
insult and blaspheme the holiness of God, does not the 
divine holiness call aloud for the punishment. of sin? Surely 
it does. Pe ke 

4. The justice of God opposes the pardon of sin without 
a satisfaction. Justice is that attribute, by which God ren- 
ders to every one according to his works. Sin insults this 
divine atiribute, (Psal. x.-13,) “« Wherefore doth the wick- 
«¢ ed contemn God ? He hath said in his heart, Thou wilt 
«s not require it.”” Were sin, therefore, to pass with impu- 
~ nity, how could the honour of this attribute be vindicated ? 
How could it be said, that God will by no means clear the 
guilty ? WS jae ae ade 
5, Even the Goopnrss anp Mercy of God are opposed to 
the pardon of sin without a satisfaction. ‘ If it be argued” 
(says Dr. B., p. 231,) ‘If it be argued from the divine ho- 
< Jiness and justice, that God must punish the innocent for 
“the guilty ; it may be argued from his goodness and mer- 
“‘ cy, that he must forgive the guilty, and cannot punish at 
‘¢ all.?? Answer—We do not argue, that God must punish the 
innocent for the guilty—we all deny, that God was under any 
natural necessity to do so—We all maintain, that God might 
have punished the guilty race of men, as well as fallen an- 
gels, without providing any remedy. But we argue, that 
God cannot pardon sin without a satisfaction. _We main- 
tain, that all the perfections of God forbid it. We deny the 


121 


assertion of Dr. B.—that «it may be argued from the good- 
“ness and mercy of God that he must forgive the guilty, 
*« and cannot punish at all.” We assert, that the goodness 
and mercy of God, as well as his justice and holiness, cal] 
aloud for the punishment of sin. Were the supreme magis- 
trate in a civil state to suffer crimes to pass unpunished— 
were he, through a mistaken notion of goodness and mercy, 
to permit robbers, murderers, &c. to pass with impunity— 
_ What would be the result? Would not his clemency to the 
few, be cruelty to the many? Would not crimes abound ? 
Would not misery abound? Would not that state very 
shortly become “the field of Golgotha, and dead men’s 
~ © skulls 2? Now, in proportion as the moral government 
of the universe is more important than that of any civil state ; 
in the same proportion would the pardon of sin without a 
satisfaction be more mischievous, destructive, and cruel. It 
is not, therefore, the doctrine of the atonement, but the doc- 
trine of Socinians and Arians, that is inconsistent with the 
goodness and mercy of God. | 

Il. To maintain with Dr B., that the death of Christ was 
not necessary to the pardon of sin, or the salvation of sin. _ 
hers, is to teach a doctrine, not only insulting to the glory 
of all the divine perfections, but degrading to the divine 
law, and subversive of the divine government. The law of 
God is a rule to the rational creature. Now arule must 


laws which govern the material system. But, is it not alto- 
gether absurd to imagine, that those laws which govern the 
_ natural world should be steady ; whilst those which govern 
the moral world should Sluctuate !—that the laws of inani- 
Mate nature should be permanent ; but those of the éntel- 
lectual and moral creation, variable !—Reason and revela. 
tion unite in teaching a very different doctrine. Our Sa- 
‘viour himself assures us, that he came not to destroy the law, 
a3 1] 


122 


but to’ fulfil it—and that «‘heaven and earth shall pass 
away ; but a jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law 
till all be fulfilled.”’ Human Jaws are imperfeet, and there- 
fore they are frequently abrogated, or their penalties relax- 
ed; but the moral law being perfect—being founded on the 
immutable nature of God—being a transcript of the holi- 
ness of the divine nature—can never be abolished, without 
the abolition of the divine image. The law is holy; and 
therefore the holiness of the law requires its execution— 
the law is just ; and therefore the justice of the law requires 
its execution—tbe law is good, and therefore the goodness 
of the law requires its execution. ‘To pardon sin without 
a satisfaction, would be a virtual acknowledgment, that the » 
law is neither holy, nor just, nor good. ‘To pardon sin 
without a satisfaction, would degrade the divine law, coun- 
teract its object, and open a floodgate for every species of 
wickedness. How would men be encouraged in sin from ~ 
the consideration, that they might sin with impunity! The 
sufferings of Jesus were therefore necessary. not only to 
glorify the perfections of God, but to ** magnify the law and 
“ make it honourable.” ‘¢ Christ is the end of the law for 
“¢ righteousness to every one that believeth.” 

lil. That the sufferings and death of the Son of God 
were indispensably necessary in the work of our redemption, 
is evident from many portions of the sacred volume. (Luke, 
xxiv. 26). ‘+ Ought not-Christ to have suffered these things, 
‘< and to enter into his glory ?”’—(Heb. ii, 10), ‘+ For it be-- 
‘¢ came him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all 
« things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the 
«captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings;”— 
(John, xii. 24), “Except a corn of wheat fall into the 
«* ground and die, it abideth alone ; butif it die, it bringeth 
« forth much fruit.” Dr. B. alleges, that the Redeemer’s 
death might have been dispensed with, without defeating 
‘the object for which he came into the world ; but our Sa- 
yiour asserts the very reverse. (John, xii. 27), ** Father, 
«< save me from this hour :. but for this cause came I unto 
« this hour.”’—(Mat. xx. 28), ‘Even as the Son of man 
«came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to 
«« give his life a ransom for many.”—Nay, the very text 
which the Doctor adduces, to prove, that the death of Christ — 
might have been dispensed with, proves his death to be in- | 
dispensable, ‘*O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup — 
“ pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou 


123 


« wilt.” Aversion to suffering is essential to humanity. 
This aversion our Saviour felt and expressed in this pathetic 
_ prayer.—tHis holy human soul shuddered and recoiled at the 
thought of those agonies he was about to endure. He pray- 
ed, ‘“Ifit be possible, let this cup pass from me.”—Had it 
been possible it would have passed from him; for the Father. 
hears him always ; but it did not pass from him, therefore 
it was not possible. It is true, our Saviour Says, ‘* Abba, 
“ Father, all things are possible unto thee.” By this asser- 
tion, however, our Saviour could not mean, that all things 
universally are possible unto God; but only all things that 
do not imply a contradiction, or are not inconsistent with 
the divine perfections. It is impossible for God to lie. He 
cannot deny himself, nor can he act inconsistently with his 
own divine attributes.—The cup could not pass from the 
Redeemer. ‘The glory of the divine perfections, the honour 
of the divine law, the stability of the divine government, 
rendered it impossible. Had the cup passed from the Re- 
deemer, how could the Scriptures have been fulfilled ? What 
would have become of all the types, the sacrifices, the 
prophecies, the promises, the counsels of God relative to 
the death and sufferings of his Son ?—The fulfilment of all | 
these rendered it impossible that the bitter cup should pass 
from the Redeemer—that sin should be pardoned without 
a satisfaction. ‘ Without shedding of blood there is no re- 
mission.”’ “ 
In opposing the necessity of the sufferings of Christ, our 
author appears completely bewildered. | Witness the follow- 
ing extraordinary paragraph (p. 212), ** One text which fa- 
*“ yours the opinion, that the crucifixion of Christ made an 
‘« original part of the plan of redemption, is in the thanks- 
“* giving of Peter and John: (Acts, xv. 27), Of a truth, 
** against thy holy child, Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, 
** both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the 
** people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatso- 
** ever thy hand and counsel determined before to be done.— 
“« The words determined to be done, may, however, only im- 
** port, that these events were foreseen as the natural con- 
“sequence of his mission.? © ; 

‘The Doctor himself grants, that Acts, iv. 27, favours the 
Opinion, that.the crucifixion of Christ made an original part 
of the plan of redemption. Now, if the text favours that - 
Opinion, thit opinion must be true ; for surely, no text of 
Scripture would favour an erroneous opinion, The Apostle 


124 


Peter favoured the opinion: Dr. B. favours the opposite 
opinion! Now, Christian readers, whether it be right in 
the sight of God, to adopt the opinions favoured by Dr. 
Bruce, rather than those favoured by the Apostle Peter, 
judge ye! Our author grants that the text favours the 
opinion, that the crucifixion of Christ made an original part 
of the plan of redemption ; and yet, strange to tell! in the 
very same paragraph he denies that it favours such an opi- 
nion! He proves—or thinks he proves—that it does not. 
How ? by a very simple process—by telling us, that the 
Apostle said one thing and meant another—-that though he 
declared the Redeemer’s crucifixion to be determined before 
—he only meant that it was seen before !—T hus, 1n one short 
paragraph, Dr. B. contradicts the Apostle—contradicts him- 
self—aad publishes to the whole world a wonderful dis- 
covery-—that foreordination may import nothing more thar 
foreknowledge !* | ne 
Endeavouring to prove, that the Redeemer’s blood was 
not very portant in the work of our redemption, and that 
it might have been dispensed with, the Doctor employs an 
argument, if possible, still more extraordinary. In_ the 
parable of the householder, after the maltreatment of a. 
variety of servants, God the Father is represented as send- 
ing, last of all, his Son, saying, ‘* They will reverence my 
-Son.”? ‘ Here,’ says Dr. B., ‘‘ an expectation of the suc- 
‘¢ cess and safety of his Son is plainly implied.” What! 
fs it possible? Did God foreknow, from all eternity, that 
his Son would be crucified, and yet expect he would not be 
crucified ? In his crucifixion, did his enemies do whatso- 
ever God’s hand and counsel determined before to be done ; 
and yet did God expect that his Son would not be eruci- 
fied? Did God inspire prophets to predict the crucifixion 
of his Son, and yet did not expect that he would be cruci- 
fied ? Did God—but why expose the absurdity any farther ? 
The Deity never expected—nor could possibly expect—any 
event inconsistent with his own foreknowledge, his own — 


r 


* When Dr. B. substitutes foreknowledge for predetermination, the 
reader may suppose, that the original word admits of such a construc- 
tion. He will be surprised, however, to learn, that it never has such a 
meaning.  Tigoweige, the word translated determined before, is derived 
from "ope, to raise up—thence comes ‘oges, mountain, because mountains 
are elevations—thence, again, ‘oges, a boundary, because mountains 
are boundaries—from ‘ogs, a boundary, comes gfe, to bound, and 
meooet?@, the word in the text, to bound or determine before. oi 


a2 


125 


decrees, and his own predictions. Nay, I will go farther 
afd assert, without any fear of rational contradiction—that 
the Deity never expected any event to come to pass, which 
does not actually come to pass. ‘T'o suppose. that any 
event may fall out otherwise than the Deity expected is to 
Suppose that the divine expectations may be disappointed, 
and, of course, that the ever-blessed God may be unhappy! 
In vain does Dr. B. depreciate the death of our blessed 
Redeemer ; in vain does he endeavour to represent it as an 
unessential part of redemption, by quoting our Saviour’s 
words before his crucifixion, ‘I have finished the work 
‘““ thou gavest me to do.”? Dr. Millar’s reply is judicious 
and satisfactory : (p. 105.) ‘« When, however, our Saviour 
*“ said in his prayer, that he had Jinished the work which 
“his Father had given him to do, he must be understood 
- to speak of his ministry.’ “J,” he adds,‘ have mant- 
“ fested thy name unto the men which thou Savest me out of 
“ the world. ‘This was the work to be dene by our Sa- 
*“‘viour. That which remained, was to be suffered by 
“Soham? “Sse, bib” 

Dr. B. admits, that « the death of Christ was a principal 
“* part of redemption ; that it was essential to his resurrec- 
‘‘ tion, which is the most incontrovertible proof of the di- 
“vinity of his religion, the corner-stone of the church, and 
“the foundation of the faith of Christians ; that without 
** the awful catastrophe of his persecution, death, and re- 
‘* surrection, all other evidence would have been inade- 
“* quate* to subdue the stubborn incredulity of this scepti- 
“‘ cal age.” (See p. PALER BY uv wid eh, Bo: 

How such concessions are consistent with the opinion, — 
that the death of Christ was not indispensably necessary, 
remains to be explained. Christ’s death was the principal 
part of redemption; and yet was not essential to it !—was 
not indispensably necessary ! Christ’s death'was the most 
incontrovertible proof of the divinity of his religion, and 
yet was not indispensably necessary !. Christ’s death was 
the corner-stone of the church, and yet was not indispensa- 
bly necessary! Christ’s death was the foundation of the 


specimen of that confusion of ideas which is so frequently discoverable 
in the Doctor’s sermons. ‘ 


126 


Christian faith, and yet was not indispensably necessary * 
One thing, at least, the Doctor will acknowledge to be in- 
dispensably necessary—that while a writer is contradicting 
the doctrines of divine revelation, he should be careful not to 
contradict himself ! : 


SECTION I. 


Reconciliation shown to be necessary on the part of God, as 
well as on the part of man. 


Our author, having laboured hard, but laboured in vain, 
to prove that the death of Christ was not indispensably ne- 
essary, proceeds more formally to attack the doctrine of 
‘the Atonement. And how does the Doctor advance to the 
charge? By endeavouring to deprive of all definite mean- 
ing the language employed in the communication of the 
doctrine. The word atonement in his text (Rom. v. 11,)- 
is translated inthe margin reconciliation. What inference 
does the Doctor deduce from this ? A very extraordinary 
ene indeed—that the original word has ‘‘ no peculiar signi . 
 fieation!’? What! in the nineteenth century—in the 
Athens of Ireland—and by Dr. B., the quondam celebrated 
principal of the Belfast Academy—to be told that certain 
Greek words have ‘no peculiar signification!’ Every 
scholar, who has the least acquaintance with the philosophy 
of language, knows, that every word has some peculiar— 
some radical meaning, from which all its other meanings— 
if it has any other—are deduced. But (delenda est Carthago) | 
the Atonement is to be exploded, and this object ean never 
be accomplished, without a sacrifice of the first principles 
af language and general grammar. So. long: as there is any 
definite meaning in words, the doctrine of atonement must 
remain impregnable. : Fks 
Involving the doctrine in obscurity, with a view to the 
complete subversion of it, Dr. B. writes thus: (p. 314,} 
«The English word atonement has a variety of sigmifica- 
‘tions in our Bibles.”? After enumerating those various 
meanings, he sagely concludes; * These instances, may | 
‘ tend to correct the superstitious notions, so often attach- 
‘« ed to this mysterious word.’ By such a simple process, 
‘the Doctor contrives to explode the most important doc- 
trines of the Christian system—first the Supreme Deity, and 
now the Atonement of our Blessed Redeemer. The word 
Ged hae various meanings, and therefore we cannot preve 


129 


by the application of this term, that the Redeemer is God 
in the highest and ordinary sense of that word! The word 
~~. atonement: has various meanings : it is a mysterious word ; 
and, therefore, its common acceptation is to be rejected ! 
An admirable contrivance indeed !—a contrivance well cal- 
culated to explode all the doctrines of divine revelation ! 
If variety of meaning render words ambiguous and mys- 
terious ; and if such ambiguity and mysteriousness render 
them unfit for proving any doctrine, what doctrine could be 
proved ? On this. principle, the whole Christian system 
might be exploded at once! Every person acquainted with 
the nature of reasoning and language, will join with me in 
protesting against such desolating principles of logic and 
of criticism. 
Atonement or at-one-ment, is the « setting at one again,” 
of persons previously at variance. In this original mean- 
ing of the word, as Dr. B. justly observes, it was synony- 
mous with reconciliation. Now, if those two synonymous 
words are found, one in the text, and the other in the mar- 
gin, how-does this prove that the original word KaTaAANYT, 
of which they are translations, has no peculiar meaning ? 
The solution of this problem, I am convinced, would re: 
quire a philologist far superior either to Dr. B., or his hum- 
ble opponent. As the origina) word is in every other place 
rendered reconciliation, it should, I presume, have been so 
translated in the text. Still more necessary is it to adopt 
this translation now, as the word atonement has undergone 
a change of signification; and the two words remain no 
Jonger synonymous. Though Dr. B. will agree with me in 
translating the word: xatarhrayy, reconciliation, in prefer- 
ence to atonement ; yet with regard to the application of 
the word so translated, whether it is to be understood as re- 
conciliation on the part of God or man ; whether it means 
God’s being pacified towards us, or our laying aside our en- 
‘ity towards him—this is the point in dispute. The advo- 
«ates of the atonement maintain that reconciliation is ne- 
Sessary, both in reference to God and man—that God ré= 
quires to be reconciled to man, as well as man to be recon- 
siled to God. The enemies of the atonement deny this, 
and maintain, that there is no necessity of God being re. 
onciled to man, but only of man being reconciled to God, 
_ This is the cardinal point, en which the whole controversy 
seems to turn. . : ty 
The opponents ef the atonement maintain, -that, in the 


128 


Seipiunes of truth, man is always said to be reconciled to 
God, but God is never said to be reconciled to man. In 
reply to this, I would observe, Ist—That, were the statement 
true, it would not prove what is intended. In Scripture 
phraseology the offending party is said to’ be reconciled, 
when the party offended is pacified. ‘Thus (Mat. v. 23 24), 
‘< Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there re- 
“ memberest that thy brother hath aught against thee ; leave 
‘« there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way ; first be 
** reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy 
“* oift.”” Here the offending brother is enjoined to be re- 
conciled ; though the meaning plainly -is—that, by proper 
acknowledgments or restitution, he should endeavour to 
pacify the brother offended. In like manner, when men, 
the offending party, are said to be reconciled to God, this 
does ‘not exclude, but implies, his reconciliation towards 
them. 

2. God, in Scripture, is said to be pacified, which is tan- 
tamount to his being reconciled. (Hz. xvi. 63), +‘ That 
‘* thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never 
** open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when 
‘+ ] am pacified toward thee, for all that thou hast done, 
‘« saith the Juord God.”? To be reconciled, and to be pa- 
cified, are phrases of similar import—A gain, (Isaiah xii.1), 
‘« And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee; 
‘* though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned 
‘““away, and thou comfortedst me.’’ Here, God is recon- 
ciled ; his anger is turned away, and the soul comforted. 

3. The text, from which Dr. B. preaches his two ser- 
mons against the atonement, proves the very doctrine he so 
violently opposes. (Rom. v. 11,) ‘* And not only so, but 
_ we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
‘““ whom we have now received the atonement.”? That 
atonement, or reconciliation as the word should be rendered,- 
is expressive of God’s being pacified, and not of man’s be-: 
tng reconciled, will be evident on a moment’s reflection ; 
for how could we receive our own reconciliation. Would 
it not be nonsense to say, we have received the laying aside 
of our own enmity? Daniel prophecies, that Jesus Christ 
would make reconciliation for iniquity ; and Paul declares, 
that our great antitypical High Priest made. reconciliation 
for the sins of the people—and how? The same apostle 
will answer the question: ‘* He put away sin by the sacri- 
‘¢ fice of himself.” i 


129 


4. That the blood of Jesus was necessary in order to re- 
toncile God to man. is evident from this—That all mankind 
Were exposed to the wrath and judicial displeasure of God. 
(Rom. i. 18), ‘* For the wrath of God is revealed from hea- 
*« ven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” 
By the vicarious sufferings of Jesus, this wrath is turned 
away, and God is reconciled. ‘‘ The Lord is well pleased 
‘* for his righteousness sake.” 

» Against this view of the subject, Dr. B. inveighs with 
great vehemence. (P. 234.). «« Another pretence,’’* says 
he, ‘+ for the popular doctrine of the atonement is, that sin 
‘* is so hateful to God as to excite his wrath in the highest 
‘* degree ; and that his vengeance cannot be appeased with- 
“out the everlasting destruction of the sinners; but that 
** he was prevailed upon by Christ, a portion of his own 
** essence, to accept of his sufferings in their stead. This 
“3s an extraordinary accumulation of false doctrine and 
“« contradiction.”’—Again. (p. 290), «« You may begin to 
** apprend, that [am running into the common error of mag- 
*‘ nifying the Son above the Father; of ascribing all 
** the grace to Christ and all the wrath to God.’’—Who 
magnifies the Son above the Father 2? Who ascribesall the 
grace to Christ and all the wrath to God? The Doctor 
declares, that these errors are common. I call upon him 
_ to name a single individual, who either from the pulpit or 
the press, ever advocated such errors. Whoever main- 
tained, that God was prevailed on by Jesus Christ, a por- 
tion of his own essence; to accept of his sufferings in the 
stead of sinners? It is painful to animadvert on such gross 
misrepresentations. The advocates of the atonement ne~ 
ver imagined that God the Father was less placable or less 
merciful than Jesus Christ. They never imagined that the 
Redeemer rendered God placable. They always spurned 
with contempt such foul imputations. Dr B. knew this ; 
for he quotes the following words of the Archbishop of 
Dublin, «* The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed, by 
“* any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of the 
*“ atonement, to have made God placable.”’ One should 
think that this bold protest of the Archbishop against the 
wilful calumniators of the doctrine, would have prevented 
future calumnies. Butno. It will not do. The preced- 


ta ce 


* All is mere pretence it seems. 


v 


130 


ing quotations show, that protests and remonstrance are 
of no avail. The enemies of the atonement will’ go on to 
misrepresent and calummate the doctrine. 

Dr. B. (p. 229), indulges in the followmg invectives : 
“Tf, therefore, the common doctrine of the atonement or 
‘* propitiation imply, that God is not naturally propitious, 
** placable, and merciful, it contradicts every principle of 
“‘ natural and revealed religion. He requires nothing to 
** make him merciful, but to be merciful ourselves ; nothing 
‘to make him placable, but that we be meek, lowly, and 
, © forgiving : nothing to make him propitious to us, but that 
«© we be kind and tender- hearted to one another. With re- 
** spect to himself, he requires only that we walk humbly 
‘before him. Any. construction, therefore, of this doc- , 
*¢ trine, which represents God as implacable, should be re- 
** jected without further inquiry, without exposing your re- 
** ligious feelings to be degraded by sophistical arguments 
«and fanatical harangues.’? We grant Dr. B., that if the 
common doctrine of the atonement implies, that God is not 
naturally propitious, placable, and merciful, it contradicts 
every principle of natural and revealed religion. But the 
common doctrine of the atonement implies no such thing. 
The advocates of the atonement abhor the idea. They re- 
gard it with infinite contempt. It is not the friends, but. 
the enemies of the atonement, that represent God as natu- 
rally implacable. It is Dr. B. that thus represents him.— 
According to the Doctor, God is not naturally merciful, 
propitious, or placable ; but requires to be MADE so !_And 
who will Make him so 2 Wx oursenves!!. He requires 
our mercifulness to make HIM MERCIFUL !—our meekness, 
lowliness, and forgiving disposition, to make Him PLACcA- 
BLE !—our kindness and tender-heartedness, to make nim 
pRoPITious!—What even the blood of the Son of God 
could not accomplish, is thus modestly ascribed to human 
virtue! Let the reader now judge whose principles are 
most calculated to expose our religious feelings to be de- 
graded by sophistical arguments and fanatical harangues— 
whose doctrine it is that contradicts or principle of na- 
tural and revealed religion. : 

The advocates of the atonement constantly affirm, that 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in placability—in 
mercy—in grace—in love—in all divine perfections. ‘They 
constantly affirm, that. it was the sovereign mercy, grace, 
und love of God, which induced him to provide a remedy, 


a \ 


to lay help upon one that was mighty to save—to send his 
Son into the world to save sinners. ‘They constantly affirm, 
that “« God so loved the world, that he gave his only be-. 
** gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
‘¢ perish, but have everlasting life.’ Such are the rea) 
views of those who hold the doctrine of the atonement— 
views very different indeed from that « extraordinary accy- 
** mulation of false doctrine”? and contraciction, Salsely 
charged upon them by Dr. B. 

After our author has sufficiently declaimed against ima- 
ginary false doctrine, he proceeds to State, what he con- 
Ceives to be the true doctrine. Sin,he grants, to be hate- 
ful to God, and at the same time assures us, that ‘“ God’s 
‘« hatred of sin can mean only his hatred of the sinner, and 
** his love of righteousness can be shown only by his kind. 
** ness to the righteous.”’ Now, if God hate sin, and if his 
hatred of sin-can only mean his hatred of sinners, it follows 
of course, that God hates all mankind 3 for all are\sinners ! 
We distinguish between God’s hatred of sin. and his hatred 
of sinners ; the Doctor denies any such distinction. Tt fol- 
lows then, that since God hates sin—and hates it with an 
implacable hatred, as our author will not deny—he must 
also hate sinners with an implacable hatred !—And as the 
whole human family who are capable of moral agency are 
sinners, he must hate with implacable hatred the whole human 
Samily!—but, if he hate the whole human family with an 
implacable hatred, the whole human Samily must be eternally 
miserable !‘—They must all be damned ! Not one soul can 


. possibly be saved! God loves mankind, according to the 


Doctor, yet hates them—hates them as he hates sin, that is, 
with an implacable and eternal hatred! ! Such are Dr. 
Bruce’s ideas of God’s hatred of sinand sinners! Such is 
his mild, true, and consistent doctrine!!! ; 
Let us attend to his views of God’s love of righteousness, 
‘‘ God’s love of righteousness, ”’ Says the Doctor, «* can be 
shown only by his kindness to the righteous.” New and 
strange doctrine indeed! A doctrine as unscriptural and 


absurd, as it is novel. Tell] me, Dr. B., can God on] 
. show his love of righteousness by his kindness to the righ- 


teous? Can he not also show it by punishing the wicked 2 
Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? The sentj. 
ments-of David on this subject differ widely from those of 
our author. (Psal. xi. 6, 7,) % Upon the wicked he shal} 


‘rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest : 


132 

e¢ this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous 
** Lord loveth righteousness ; his countenance doth behold 
¢ the upright.’ Here we see, that God’s love of righteous- 
ness is testified, by raining a horrible tempest on sinners, 
as well as by showing kindness to the righteous.—(See Rev. 
xvi. 5, 6.—Rom. ii. 6, 9, inclusive.)—IJ submit, now, to 
every reader capable of the slightest reflection, whether the 
friends of the atonement, or Dr. B. may more justly be 
charged with an extraordinary accumulation of false doctrine 
and contradiction. 


SECTION III. 
The Death of Christ vicarious. 


Tne way of a sinner’s salvation is so plain. that a way- 
faring man, though a fool, shall not err therein.—But is 
there any thing so plain. either in the volume of nature or 
divine revelation, as not to be controverted? That there 
is aGod, has been denied—that there is a sun in the firma- 
ment, has been questioned—that there is no material world, 
has been asserted—that there is nothing in the universe but 
ideas and sensations, has been strenuously maintained.—It 
would seem, that the pride of man piques itself in opposing 
‘those truths which are the most plain and incontrovertible ; 
whilst it glories in advocating errors the most paradoxical 
and absurd. Were this weakness of our nature—to call it 
by no worse name—manifested only in abstract theories, 
and philosophical speculations, it might be regarded as of 
very little consequence—it might afford matter of ridicule 
or amusement: but, when it is employed in subverting the 
Christian system, or razing the foundations of the sinner’s 
hope, the pious Christian cannot avoid feeling the most: 
acute and painful sensations. Good, however, results from 
evil. Not only Christianity itself, but all the doctrines of 
the Christian system, are calculated to bear the most rigor- 
ous examination—the most fiery trial. Whilst the wood, 
hay, and stubble, of erroneous opinions are burnt up, the 
gold, silver, and precious stones of gospel doctrines shine 
forth with refulgent splendour, delighting every mind with 
their beauty, and dazzling every eye with their glory. 

The great atoning sacrifice of Jesus was predicted by 
prophets, typified by sacrifice, proclaimed by apostles, 
preached by the Redeemer, and celebrated in the rapturous 


133 


inspired anthems both of the Old and New ‘Testament 
church. Hundreds of texts prove that glorious doctrine, 
which is the foundation stone of the Christian system—the ~ 
cardinal point, on which turn all our hopes for time and 
eternity. The doctrine of a vicarious atonement being of 
great, of paramount, of infinite importance, is taught in the 
sacred volume, so abundantly and so clearly, that he who 
runs may read. , 
_ Isat assures us, that our blessed Redeemer was wound- 
ed for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities ; 
that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and that 
by his stripes we are healed—that it pleased the Lord to 
bruise him, to put him to grief, to make his soul an offer- 
ing for sin, and to lay upon him the inquities of us all. 
Dantex predicted, that the Messiah should be cut off, 
but not for himself—that he should finish transgressions, 
make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, and 
bring in everlasting righteousness. “red jill 
Tux Apostie Paut assures us, that we are bought with 
a price—that Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he 
might redeem us from all iniquity—that we have redemp- 
tion through his blood, the forgiveness of sins—that he has 
purchased the church with his blood—that he has redeemed 
us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us— 
that God has set him forth to bea propitiation through faith 
in his blood, and has made him, who knew -no sin, to be 
sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God 
inhim. That Jesus Christ gave himself for us, as a sacri- 
fice and offering of a sweet smelling savour ; and putaway 
sin by the sacrifice of himself. Yabeiciaits , 
Prrer affirms, that we are redeemed, not with corrupt- 
ible things, as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of 
- theSon of God, as of a lamb without spot or blemish—that 
Jesus Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he 
might bring us to God—that his own self bare our sins in 
his own body onthe tree. __ | thy 
Tux Avostte Joun assures us, Once and again, that 
Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins—and that his 
blood cleanseth us from allsin. 4 eae 
_ Ovr siessep Lorp mimnseir declares, that he came not 
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give life a 
ransom. for many. NEA a ofp ee 
_ These, and a multitude of other Scriptures too numerous 


hs Ls Are gee at : ¥ 


134 


for quotation, prove to the humblest and most illiterate 
mind, the doctine of a-vicarious atonement. The obvious 
meaning of such texts Doctor B. endeavours to evade by a 
variety of stratagems. He tells us, that “the words in 
‘‘ Greek which are translated for, as Christ died for us,”’ 
and ‘he was a ransom for many,’’ are equivocal. But T 
will tell the learned Doctor, that the words aves, ure, and 
xeo, in Greek, are no more equivocal than the word for in 
English. When the mere English scholar reads, that an 
orange was given for a lemon, or an apple for a pear, does 
he feel any difficulty in the application of the word for? 
None at all. He knows quite well, that it signifies substi- 
tution or exchange. Were Doctor B. to tell him, that he 
is quite mistaken—that the word for has various accepta- 
tions—that, therefore. he should not. conclude that there 
was any barter, substitution or exchange in the case—would 
not the most illiterate peasant laugh at such criticism ? 
With equal contempt will the plain unlettered Christian 
treat that criticism, which denies that there is any substitu 
tion implied in such texts as these: ‘« Christ died for the 
ungodly’’—He “gave his life a ransom for many’ — 
“ Who gave himself a ransom for all.” And with stil 
‘greater contempt will such criticism be treated by the man 
who understands the force of the original. The radical | 


meaning of the preposition ure, is above. The first quoted 


text might therefore be more literally rendered, ‘* Christ 
died above the ungodly.” ‘he idea is strikingly significant. 
The sinner is represented as lying prostrate at the feet of 
lis offendéd sovereign, and the arm of divine, vengeance 
lifted up, ready to strike the fatal blow ; ‘the blessed Re- 
deemer throwing himself, tree. upon or above the sinner, is 
‘pierced by the sword of divine justice, whilst the sinner 


escapes. The ordinary signification of the preposition ov, — 


is also substitution. (Ex. xxi. 23, 24,)'« And if any mis- 
<« chief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, 
«tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.’ In all these 
instances of substitution. the preposition for, 1s ovrs in the 
Septuagint. Multitudes of similar instances might be ad- 
duced. When we are assured that Jesus Christ gave his 
life a ransom for many (Avrgov aver mohAwv,) can we doubt 
that substitution is intended? The appropriate meaning 
of Aurgoy, is a ransom, and of aves, substitution. © 1 Tim. ii. — 


6 is; if possible, still stronger. Who gave himself 


j 


t 


135 
(avridureov) a vicarious ransom (imep navrwv) instead of all, 
The vicarious nature of the ransom is pointed out, first by 
the preposition avs, and, if this were not sufficient, it is 
again pointed out by the preposition vmree. On soine of the 
senses of these prepositions, Doctor B. tells his hearers, 
the doctrines of imputed righteousness and vicarious punish- 
ment have been chiefly erected. Whether prepositions, or 
nouns, or verbs, or some of the other parts of speech, con- 
tribute most to the support of those doctrines, [ have never 
yet inquired, nor do | conceive it important to determine. 
One thing f know, that if those doctrines. or any other doc- 
trines, be erected at all, they must be erected on some of 
the senses of prepositions and other parts of speech! I 
know, also, that the prepositions. in their most usual accep- 
tations, are entirely in favour of those doctrines ; and still 
. farther, I know, that if our author be able to overturn those 
doctrines, it will not be by the ordinary senses of either 
prepositions or any other class of words. Let not Doctor 
B. think to explode those doctrines, by telling his hearers 
that the words by which they are supported have various 
meanings. We all know this. The words which support 
all doctrines have various meanings. Let him come for- 
ward like a true philologist. in a manner worthy of his high 
literary attainments—ilet him show that the words for, bear, 
_ &c. must be taken in senses different from those which we 
ascribe to them—let him do this, or confess’ that he has 
done nothing, or, what is worse than nothino—darkened 
counsel by words without knowledge. In the same man- 
“ mer, the Doctor involves in darkness the whole work of 
redemption, by representing such terms us ransomed, re- 
deemed, purchased, bought, &c. as metaphorical expres- 
sions—forms of speech adopted by the Apostles from habit, 
or from a wish to accommodate themselves to the usage of 
their correspondents and disciples. He conceives also that 
the death of Christ is styled a sacrifice only in allusion to 
the sacrifices of the legal dispensation. He confounds 
types with antitypes, shadows with substances, and enve- 
lopes the whole in darkness and confusion. ‘The law was 
a shadow of good things to come.”’? Jesus Christ, his 


ny 


_ Offices and benefits, were the substance. Doctor B. in- 
verts this order. He represents redemption by Christ, the 
ransom he paid, and the sacrifice he offered, as mere sha- 


dows, embellishments of speech, and Jigurative allusions 


] 


136 


—allusions to redemption from Egypt—to legal sacrifices, . 
&c.* | ie > 

‘* Other expressions,”’ says our author, (p. 219,) ‘* are 
“borrowed from the Jewish sacrifices, on account of an 
** apparent resemblance between the crucifixion and the 
*< death of a victim ; but this is only apparent, and there 
**is no more reason for taking these literally than the for- 
“ mer.’*? So then, it seems, that between the legal sacrifices 
and the death of Christ, there was not so much as a resem- 
blance. ‘The resemblance was only apparent, but not real ! 
~Christ’s death, according to Doctor B., was not a real, but 
only a metaphorical sacrifice. Neither is the metaphor it- 
self real, but only apparent—a metaphor without any real 
resemblance !—a false metaphor! the shadow of a sha- 
dow !—Such an attack upon an inspired Apostle, requires 
no comment. ey 

Dr. B. asserts, that the paschal lamb was no sacrifice. 
P. 222, he writes thus: ‘*‘ But the paschal lamb was not 
‘*« sacrificed : no sacrifice could be performed except in the 
‘*‘ temple ; but the paschal lamb, to which our Saviour is 
‘¢ compared, was killed in a private house, and dressed and 
“ eaten at a domestic entertainment, without any sacrificial 
*< ceremonies. If, therefore, Christ was literally sacrificed, 
« he could not be likened to the paschal lamb.’’—In this 
quotation, Dr. B. asserts, that the paschal Jamb was not a 
sacrifice, but the Spirit of God asserts that it was. (Ex. 
xii. 27}, ‘‘ Ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s 
‘< passover,” (Ex. xxxiv. 25), ‘* Thou shalt not offer the 
«< blood of my sacrifice with leaven ; neither shall the sacri- 
“ fice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.” 
—Hearers of Dr. B., and readers of this Rerurarion ! 
whether it be right in the sight of God, to believe the Doc- 
tor rather than God, judge ye! It is true, indeed, that the 
Jews originally killed and eat the passover in private 
-houses : their circumstances forbade them to do otherwise : 


* Dr. B. brings forward the arguments of Socinians and Aria 
arguments, the sophistry of which Archbishop Magee has completely 
detected and exposed. Though he has read Magee on Atonement and 
Sacrifice, without paying the least attention to the reasenings of that 
justly celebrated author, he proceeds with the utmost confidence to ex- 
hibit once more the exploded doctrines of Taylor and Priestly. For 
such unaccountable conduct, he falls under the merited censure of 
Doctor Millar, of Armagh, who repeats some of the Archbishops 


arguments. : 


2 


ee 


137 


but it is no less true, that when they came into’the land of 
Canaan, the practice was changed : they were strictly en- 

joined to sacrifice the passover, only in the place which the 

Lord their God should choose. It was one of the great 

_ anniversary feasts celebrated at Jerusalem. After the tem- 
ple was built the paschal lamb was sacrificed only in the 

temple. Was Dr. B. ignorant of this fact ? Did he never 

read Deut. xvi. 2,6? The Apostle Pau! asserts, that Christ 
our passover is sacrificed for us. In this assertion, he 
likens the sacrifice of Christ to that of the paschal lamb ; 
but how could the sacrifice of Christ, whether literal or me- 
taphorical, be like that of the paschal lamb, if the paschal 
lamb was not sacrificed at all? To deny, therefore. that 
the paschal lamb was sacrificed, is an outrage upon lan- 
guage and common sense.—It is to charge an inspired 

- Apostle with likening one thing to another, when between 
the two objects there is no resemblance ! Speaking of the 
death of Christ, the Doctor says (p. 236). “ if it be a sa- 
crifice, it is not a passover ; and if a passover, no sacrifice.”’ 
—The preceding observations will show, that this bold dog- 
matic assertion is not true. The death of Christ is both a 
passover and a sacrifice. 

__ In opposing the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Dr. 
B. gravely tells us, what every one knows, that the scape- 
goat was not sacrificed, nor put to deathin any way. He 
declares, that the ceremony ‘“* was an elegant emblem of 
‘« free pardon—a gratuitous pardon, without sacrifice, ran- 
“ som, imputation of sin, or vicarious punishment.’ The 
Doctor, however, forgets to tell us—that it required twe 
goats to complete the ceremony—that the first was sacri- 
ficed before the other was sent away as a scape goat into 
the wilderness. The sacrificed goat represented the atone- 
ment of Jesus ; and the scape goat, the efficacy of that 
atonement in removing guilt. Accordingly. all the sins 
of all the congregation were confessed over the head 
of the goat—That the sins of the children of Israel 
were typically transferred to the goat, is evident from 
this—that he is said to carry them away ; and the priest 

_ who confessed those sins over his head, and the person 
who conducted the goat to the wilderness, were both re- 

garded as unclean, and were both obliged to submit 

to a course of legal purification. The ceremony, there- 
fore, plainly exhibited those great and important doctrines 


ef imputed guilt, and vicarious punishment. To hide these 
12% 


138 


doctrines from the eyes of his hearers, Dr. B. is obliged to’ 
conceal one half of the ceremony. He exhibits to view the 
scape goat; but carefully conceals the goat which was 
slain. He puts asunder what God has joined, and thus 
contrives to lay aside the most important doctrine of the» 
Gospel. The Doctor asserts, that if Jesus Christ was a 
sin offering, he could not be a peace offering ; and if he 
was a peace offering, he could not be a sin offermg—and 
that he was neither. This is one of those bold dogmatic 
assertions with which his sermons every where abound—as- 
sertions founded neither in Scripture nor i reason. That 
the Redeemer was both a sin offering and a peace offering, 
the Scriptures plainly teach. He was a sin offering ; for 
he ‘* put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.’” He was. 
also a peace offering ; for he ‘‘ made peace by the blood 
‘: of his cross.’? With the same groundless confidence the 
Doctor asserts, that sin offerings were never vicarious.—It 
is evident, however, that all these offerings were vicarious. 
For what other purpose, than to point out their vicarious 
nature, and to denote a transfer of ceremonial guilt, did the 
offerer lay his hand on the head of the victim ?—If the sa- 
crifices of the patriarchal and legal dispensations were not. 
vicarious—if they were not typical of the vicarious sacri-. 
fice of Jesus Christ, what were they ’—for what purpose | 
were they instituted ?—Why were so many thousands and 
millions of victims slain ; and so many oceans of blood shed; 
if not to typify the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? For 
such an immense waste of blood, no rational account can be 
given by the enemies of the atonement. They have in- 
vented, it is true, a great variety of hypotheses; but they 
are all completely futile and unsatisfactory.* - The hypothe- 
sis of Dr. B. is quite as absurd and unreasonable as those _ 
ofhis predecessors. ‘‘ Sacrifices,” says the Doctor, ‘“‘ were 
<* a symbolical address to God, expressing the devotion, re- 
‘© pentance, and other pious affections of the sufferer.”’— 
Devotion! What kind of devotion could be expressed by 
the daily embruing of hands in blood ?—Pious affections ! 
What pious affections could possibly be expressed, by the 
dying agonies, and expiring groans of suffering animals !—. 
Uaconnected with the atonement, such scenes of suffering 


* See those hypotheses refuted and exposed by Magee on the Atone- - 
mentand Sacrifice, 9 wide iat 


139 


and blood were calculated to eradicate and destroy, rather 

than to promote and excite, pious and devout affection. 

Such scenes were calculated, not to improve, but to blunt. 
the moral feelings—not to render the worshippers merciful 

and humane, but cruel and férocious!!—Socinians and 
Arians are constantly ringing changes on the mercy of God. . 
Mercy! What mercy ?—to butcher millions of animals, 

and shed oceans of blood, and even the blood of God’s own 

Son, without any necessity !—Not clemency and mercy, 

but cruelty and blood, characterise the Antitrinitarian 

Deity. 5 : 

The millions of sacrifices that were offered, were so many 
millions of proofs of the doctrine of the atonement. The 
language of every victim whose blood stained the altar, 
was, ‘‘ WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMIS- 
“ston.” ‘ Brnotrp THe Lamp or Gop wuHo TAKETH 
*“ AWAY THE SIN OF THE wWorLD!”? __ 

_Almost all things were by the law purged with blood. 
The mercy-seat or the throne of God was sprinkled with 
blood—plainly showing, that before mercy is dispensed, 
justice must be satisfied—that justice and judgment are 
the habitation or the basis of the throne of God ; whilst 
mercy and truth move in glorious procession before him— 
Moses also sprinkled the book; and all the people. He 
sprinkled the book; thereby signifying, that it is by the 
_ peace-speaking blood of Jesus, that all the curses written 
in that book are cancelled; and that it is through the 
same atoning blood, that the people of God are entitled to 
all the blessings written in that book. He sprinkled the 
people.—As only those Israelites, on the upper lintels and 
doo t posts of whose houses the blood of the paschal lamb 
“48 sprinkled, escaped the destroying angel ; so none but 
those whose souls are sprinkled with the atoning blood of 
Jesus Christ, can possibly escape the wrath to come. 

Moses made atonement for the holy place; thus signify- 
ing, that it is through the blood of Jesus that we obtain, not 
only remission of sins, but an inheritance among all them 
that are sanctified. By this atoning blood we are not only 
freed from the wrath to come ; but have access to the en- 
joyment of Godin heaven. Jesus is entered into the holiest. 
of all, not with the blood of bulls ner of goats, but with hig 
own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Ag 
the whole of the way by which the high priest passed into 


the most holy place was sprinkled with bload ; so we have 


140 


now a new and living way to the holiest of all—to the man- 
sions of eternal glory and bliss—consecrated by the blood 
of Jesus Christ !—Under the law, not only the tabernacle, 
but all the vessels of service were sprinkled with blood. 
Atonement was also made for the altar; because of the un- 
cleanness of the Children of Israel. Sin cleaves to our 
most solemn services. and requires the atoning blood of 
Jesus. Hes ? 
In misrepresenting the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, 


Dr. B. proceeds as follows :—(p. 235)—* But this unac- 


* countable proceeding is explained by another yet more 
*< unaccountable ; by imputed sin and imputed righteous- 
“ness: a doctrine to which the Apostles were entire 
* strangers. It implies, that man was rendered pure. and 
:¢ innocent by laying his sins upon Christ ; and by this ac« 
°¢ cumulation of imputed sin, Christ became hateful to his 


‘‘ heavenly Father, that is, to himself, for they are said to be’ 


‘one: and was exposed to his wrath, and to all the pains 
*“ and penalties incurred by the sins of the whole world. IT 


‘have heard of a tyrannical master, who, when his son_ 


© committed 2 fault, would whip a slave in his stead, to 


«¢ show his displeasure, and to make his son good ; and a- 
‘¢ partial parent will sometimes deter his favourite from | 


¢* misbehaviour, by a similar experiment on another of his 
‘children ; but these are universally condemned as instan- 
‘ces of the grossest folly and injustice. In short, the 


*¢ whole scheme is full of injustice and inconsistence. If. 


‘the guilt of our sins were literally laid on Christ, he could 
:¢ not be a lamb without spot and blameless :—If not, he 


4 could not be justly punished for them.” In asserting that 
the Apostles were entire strangers to the doctrine of im- | 
puted sin and imputed righteousness, Dr. Bruce is entirely 


mistaken.—He will find it taught in the very chapter whence 
his text is taken. (Romans, v. 18, 19,) * Therefore as by 
‘the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con- 


+. demnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free 


‘¢ gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as: 
‘* by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, SO- 
*« by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” 
He will find the Apostles teaching the blessedness of the 
man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin— but imputeth 
righteousness without works. He will find them teaching, 
That Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us, — 


that we might be made the righteousness ef God in him. 


141 


The same doctrine he will find taught in many other parts - 
of the sacred volume. But, mark the gross misrepresenta- 

tion of the doctrine. «‘* By this accumulation of imputed 

** sin,” says the Doctor, ‘Christ became hateful to hig 
*‘ heavenly Father.’”? Nosuch thing. He was never more 

the object of the Father’s love, than when he was suffering 

on the cross. Ail that divines mean, when they say that he 

suffered the wrath of God, is, that he suffered the penalty of 
the broken covenant, which was a manifestation of the 

wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness 

of men. But the Doctor observes still farther, that if the 

guilt of our sins were literally laid on Christ, he could not 

be a lamb without spot and blameless. Were Dr. B. ac- 

quainted with the principles he opposes, he would know, 

that there is a distinction between the act of sin, the pollu- 

tion of sin, and the guilt of sin. He would know, that the 

act of sin is not imputed to Christ, so as to constitute hima 
sinner. The rash expressions of Luther, mentioned in the 
appendix, are, I believe, condemned by all Calvinists, as 

well as by Dr. B.—Calvinists abhor the idea, that Jesus 

Christ was a sinner; and much more that he was the great. 

est of all sinners. Neither was the stain or pollution of sin 

imputed to Jesus Christ. By pollution, I mean the depravity 

Or corruption of the human heart. This depravity or cor- 

ruption was not imputed to Jesus Christ. By imputation | 
- he was not constituted a depraved and corrupt being. 

Such ideas, though imputed to us by Dr. B., we spurn as 

blasphemous. Neither the act of sin was imputed to Christ, 

Hor the pollution of sin, the corruption of nature. What 

then was imputed? I answer, the curtr of sin, or the 

LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PUNISHMENT. ‘This is all that wag 

imputed to the Redeemer. By his own voluntary engage- 

ment he came under that legal obligation to punishment, - 
which we had incurred by violating the divine law. He 

voluntarily submitted to the stroke of divine justice—was 

wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniqui- 

ties. All this he did without contracting the slightest stain 

of moral defilement. He still continued a lamb without y, 
spot and blameless. So far was the Redeemer from con- 
’ tracting any stain of moral defilement, that, as man, he was 
sanctified, and made perfect through sufferings. 

_ Nor does the doctrine of imputed sin and imputed righte- © 
gusness imply, as the Doctor asserts, ‘‘ that man was render- 
‘ed pure and innocent by laying his sins upon Christ”? 


142 ; 


This assertion betrays a strange confusion of ideas. It con+ 
founds justification: with sanctification... The imputation of 
a@ man’s sins to Christ, changes his state, but not his nature: 
tt frees him from condemnation, and exempts him, from 
punishment ; but does not render him pure and holy. This 


is the work of the Spirit of God. This is done in nears 
tion. 


SECTION IV. 


Objections answered. 


OBJECTION Tf. 


That the innocent should suffer a the eg he is contrary 
to justice. } 

This is one of the most common, and ideech the most 
plausible, objections against the atonement. In urging it 
our author reasons thus: ‘‘!f penal justice must be satis- 
“ fied, it can only be by the punishment of the offender. It 
* can never be satisfied by one person’s dying for another. 

‘ That would be the height of injustice, if required by the 
“¢ Jegislator ; and, if he hed accept of the voluntary death . 
“* of the innocent, this would be more inconsistent with 
‘« justice, than simply to pardon the guilty. without any 
64 compensation at all: for, in this case, justice would be- 
“ vidlated in two ways ; first, by remitting the punishment 
«< of the guilty ; and next, by inflicting it on the innocent.” 
Again: (p. 239) ** Some of our own species have taken 
** delight in cruelty ; but they are universally considered as 
objects of detestation and abhorrence, Nero’s putting 
*¢ an innocent person to death, instead ofa criminal, would 
°¢ have had no effect in redeeming his character. But to 
Pes torment. and sacrifice an innocent and virtuous victim, 
“¢ from a notion, that a crime having been committed, some 
‘¢ person must suffer ;,and the more dignified and meritori- 
‘* ous, so much the better for answering the ends of justice ; 
‘‘ or to punish his dear and dutiful son, because he was ex- 
‘‘ asperated against his rebellious subjects, whom he par- 
‘¢ doned; and all this, to satisfy his vengeance, and appease 
‘* his wrath ; these are enormities, of which we could never 
** suspect the most capricious tyrant.’ 

In reply to all such reasoning, or rather deeataGon IK 
would say—-The cases are not parallel. What would be 


7 


148 


Unjust and cruel with regard to a meré man, was not so with 
regatd to the Redeemer. Here is. the fallacy. No mere 
man is master of his own life ; he has, therefore no right to 
lay it down when he pleases. His death might be a loss to 
himself—to his family—to his friends—to the church and 
to the commonwealth. ‘Vhe case was quite different with 
regard to. the Redeemer.—His life was his own, He had 
power to lay it down, and he had power to take it up again, 
His death was an injury to none. It was no injury to him- 
self ; for the laying down of his life was perfectly voluntary, 
and he resumed it again; which no nere mar could do— 
he resumed it with an immense increase ot happiness. His 
death was no loss to others; but infinite gain. Not to 
mention the redemption of souls by his blood, having resum- 
ed his life, he is employed in dispensing to the universe the 
‘inestimable benefits of his infinitely wise and benevolent.ad- 
ministration. When, among men. the innocent suffers for 
the guilty, besides the loss sustained, a positive injury is 
-done—the criminal! is let loose on society to perpetrate new 
crimes. This, 1 grant, would be an act of injustice. The 
ase; however, is very different with regard to the atone- 
ment. No injury is done, either negative or positive. The 
‘guilty person is not let loose to perpetrate new crimes. -On 
‘the contrary, provision is made for his complete reforma- 
‘tion:—Those who are redeemed by the blood, are Iso 
sanctified by the spirit, of the blessed Redeemer. (1.Cor. 
“vit 1D), «6 And such were some of you: but ye are washed ; 
“but ye are sanctified ; but ye are justified in the name of 
_ethe Lord Jesus. and by the spinit of our God.’ Jesus 
‘Christ gave himself for us—not that we might perpetrate 
‘new ‘crimes, but—< that he might redeem us from all in- 

“‘quity, and purify to himself a people zealous of good 
“works.” » Why then should Dr B. mistepresent and ca- 
dumniate the doctrine of the atonement ‘—-why should he 
-attempt to! bring an odium upon it by such foul aspersions 
‘as the following ? (p: 234) «* His displeasure at sin, it seems, 
‘¢ is best shown by forgiving the sinner without amendment 
“© or’ compensation from him.”~—Phe ad vocates of the atone- 
“Went ‘teach no ‘such doctrine. The: Scriptures of truth 

teach no such doctrine. The doctrine of the atonement 
“gives no encouragement to sin; but lays a foundation for 
universal holiness. It leads not to presumption, but inspires. 
“with reverence and godly fear. (Psal. exxx. 4), But 
“there is forgiveness (@ propitiation) with thee, that’ thou 


144 


<< mayest be feared.” The person, who is justified freely 
by grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 
exclaims with indignation, Shall I continue in sin, that grace 
may abound? God forbid! Between the atonement and 
_ regeneration there is an inseparable connexion. Those 
who receive the one are the subjects of the other. They 
are regenerated, not merely by water in baptism—the only 
regeneration which Dr. B. acknowledges—but by «* the re- 
‘< newing of the Holy Ghost.” They are ‘+ new creatures, 
“¢ created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works.” 

From the above observations, it is abundantly evident, 
that the innocent suffering for the guilty among men—and 
Jesus Christ suffering, the just for the unjust, are cases not 
at all parallel. The innocent person among men who suf- — 
fers for the guilty, does an injury to himself—or to his fami- 
ly—or to the church—or to the state—or, perhaps, to all 
these. He also injures the community by encouraging Cri- 
‘minals to perpetrate new crimes. But, as we have seen — 
above, the very reverse is the case with regard to the atone- 
ment. No injury is done ; but infinite good accrues. Let 
no person, therefore, presume to say, that the doctrine of 
the atonement is unreasonable. Let none presume to afhirm, 
that it is unjust or cruel. Let none deceive themselves, 
nor attempt to deceive others, by instituting comparisons 
which will not hold, and by confounding cases which are 
totally different. . 

Whilst Socinian and Arian writers inveigh with great ve- — 
hemence against the doctrine of the atonement, alleging, 
that the idea of the innocent suffering for the guilty involves 
in it the greatest injustice and cruelty ; they unfortunately 
forget, that all their invectives may be retorted—that they 
rebound upon themselves with accumulated force. They 
seem to forget that, according to their own views, as well 
as according to ours, the innocent suffered for the guilty. 
They grant that Jesus was innocent,* and that he suffered, — 
not for himself, but for the benefit of sinners. We must 
all grant, that in the death of Jesus we have an instance of 
the innocent suffering for the guilty. We differ, however, 
in this—They say, that the innocent suffered for the guilty 


* A few Unitarians—thank God, only a few--have arrived at such ~ 


a degree of impiety, as to call in question the innocence of our blessed 
Redeemer ! ’ 


145 


to obtain a smaller good, whilst we say, that the innocent 
suffered for the guilty to obtain a greater good. Socinians 
say, that he died to set us an example, and to confirm his 
doctrines. Arians say, that in addition to this, he obtained 
from the Father, as a reward of his sufferings, the power 
of forgiving sins to the penitent. We say, that in addition 
to all these things, he died in our room, as our substitute— 
that he suffered the penalty of the law, which we must have 
suffered, and thus redeemed us by his blood. Now, if 
there be any absurdity in supposing, that the innocent Jesus 
suffered for the guilty to obtain a good infinitely great ; it 
must be immensely more absurd to suppose that*he suffered 
to obtain a good comparatively small and inconsiderable. 
If, in the innocent suffering for the guilty, there be any in- 
justice or cruelty, the Socinian and Arian schemes must be 
most unjust and cruel.* “ 


OBJECTION IL. 


As it was only the human nature of the Redeemer that 
suffered, his atonement cannot be tnfinitely valuable.— 
“« Neither,”’ says the Doctor, could the sufferings of Christ 
‘be infinite, Their duration was temporary, and many in- 
“dividuals may have been exposed to greater torments : 
“whereas the pains of hell, for which they were to serve 
“as an equivalent, are supposed to be eternal, and the suf-. 
‘*ferers innumerable. Besides, his human nature, which 
‘< alone is said to have suffered, was not infinite.” In this 
paragraph our author falls into his usual sophism, ‘* igno- 
rantia elenchi,’’ or a mistake of the question. He denies 
that the sufferings of Christ could be infinite, and proves 
that they could not. But why deny what nobody affirms, 
or why prove what nobody denies. Surely such trifling is 
quite beneath the dignity of the learned Doctor. We do 
not maintain, that the sufferings of the Redeemer were 
infinite ; but we maintain, that they were of infinite value— 
we maintain, they were in nitely meritorious—we maintain, 
that though these sufferings were only temporary, they were 
fully equivalent to the eternal torments of the whole human. 
family. This we maintain upon the principle, that ‘though 
the nature which suffered was finite, the person that suffer- 


* This argument is well managed by Wardlaw on the ‘Socinian 
controversy. : | 
7 13 


*, 
146 


ed was infinite—though the nature that suffered was human, 
the person was Divine. It was not Sir Isaac Newton’s soul 
that died; and yet it was his soul that rendered his death 
immensely more interesting than that of a peasant. Upon 
the same principle, it was not the divine nature of Jesus_ 
that suffered; but it was his divine nature that rendered 
his sufferings and death infinitely interesting and meritori- 
ous. is 

We do not maintain that the sufferings of Christ were in- 
finite ; but we maintain that they were immensely greater 
than can be accounted for, either on Socinian or Arian 
principles. . If our blessed Redeemer did not suffer as our 
substitute, why did he offer up strong cries with tears ?— 
why was he amazed and exceeding sorrowful ?—sorrowful 
even unto death ?—why was he in an agony, and his sweat 
as great drops of blood? If he was not at that time suffer- 
ing the wrath of God; or, in other words, the penalty of 
the broken covenant—if Jehovah was not then bruising - 
him, putting him to grief, and making his soul an offermg 
for sin, what account can be given of such circumstances ? 
they are utterly unaccountable—nay, such circumstances 
would have betrayed a timidity quite unworthy of the mean- 
est martyr. If we adopt the Socinian or Arian hypothesis, 
we must admit the blasphemous conclusion, that many @ 
martyr displayed more fortitude than our blessed Re- 
deemer. | 


OBJECTION III. 


Another objection to the doctrine of the Atonement is 
stated thus: (p. 233) * Lastly, to complete the climax of 
‘absurdity, the sufferer, inthis case, is thought to be the 
‘same in essence and substance, coessential and consub- 
‘¢ stantial with the sovereign himself. If Jesus and the 
‘Father be literally and identically one, ke sacrificed him- 
‘sself to himself, and accepted of his own sufferings as an 
‘catonement to himself; while the real criminals were ex- 
«cempted from punishment, relieved from guilt, and. re- 
«« warded with high privileges and blessings, without faith, 
‘repentance, or reformation.” In reply to this objection, 
I would observe, that Jesus Christ did not make the atone- 
ment in the same character in which he received it. He 
made the atonement in the character of Mediator ; but ac- 
cepted it in the character of God. As a gracious sovercign 
he offered his human nature a vicarious sacrifice ; which 


147 

sacrifice, as a lawgiver and judge, he accepted in the room 
‘of guilty sinners, The same person may, in the:character 
of a friend, pay a debt, and in the character of a judge, 
discharge the debtor. In this I see no absurdity at all, but 
a wonderful display of grace and condescension. The re- 
maining part of the objection, that the real criminals are 
exempted’ from punishment, relieved from guilt, and re- 
warded with high privileges and blessings, without faith, 
repentance, or reformation, deserves no reply. I shall not 
call it a calumny or a falsehood: I shall only rank it 
amongst the almost infinite number of mistakes and  mis- 
statements which the Doctor has made, in consequence of 
his ignorance of the principles which he. opposes. I regret 
much, that Doctor Millar, of Armagh, in animadverting on 
the passage under consideration, has joined with Doctor 
B. in an unjust and ungenerous attempt, to roll upon the 
Calvinistic system the principal odium of the above foul 
Misrepresentation. ‘The Calvinist,’’ says he, ‘‘ does in- 
“deed teach, that the salvation of men is arbitrary, irre- 
‘** spective, and unconditional ; and so he may be charged 
** with holding, that faith, repentance, and reformation, are 
- “‘not conditions of salvation, however he may maintain, 
_‘that by the influence of the grace of God they always fol- 
‘*“low election.”’~ I ask Doctor Millar—Does the Calvinist 
teach what Doctor B. has asserted:2—Does he teach, that 
the criminal is exempted from punishment without faith ? 
No. He teaches, that he who believes not shall be damned. 
Does the Calvinist teach that the criminal. is relieved from 
guilt without faith? No: he teaches the very reverse. He 
teaches, that we are justified by faith—that in order of nature 
faith precedes justification—that in order of nature, faith 
precedes relief from guilt—that the criminal can never be 
relieved from guilt till he has first believed—that he who 
believes not is condemned already. Does the Calvinist be- 
lieve in irrespective salvation, as Doctor Millar asserts. He 
believes in no such thing, He.knows of. no salvation irre- - 
spective of faith, repentance, and reformation. May the 
Calvinist ‘ be fairly charged with holding that faith, repent- 
“ance, and reformation, are not. conditions of salvation.’ 
_ Though Doctor B. has charged him, he cannot be fairly 
_ charged, with holding any such doctrine. He holds that 
faith, repentance and reformation are conditions of salya- 
fion—not ‘meritorious conditions Andeed ; but, conditions 
_ £tne qua non—indispensable conditions+conditions which 


~ 


148 


he is able to perform, not by the self-determining power of 
his own will, but by the omnipotent influence of the blessed 
Spirit of all grace. He holds that none can be saved with- 
out repentance—that none can be saved without reforma- 
tion—a complete and entire reformation—a reformation 
which involves a new birth or regeneration—not a mere 
baptism regeneration ; but the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
in which old things pass away, and all things become new. 
I say again, that I greatly regret to find a divine of the 
learning and talents of Doctor Millar, in a treatise expressly 
written against Arianism, joining issue with an Arian Doc- 
tor in misrepresenting Calvinism, though his own creed— 
as I shall afterwards show—is undoubtedly Calvinistic. ~ 


OBJECTION IY. 


Our author contends, that the doctrine of atonement is 


inconsistent with the freedom of pardon. The Apostle, 
however, is of a different opinion. He assures us, that we 
are ‘justified freely by grace, through the redemption 
‘‘ which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to bea 
‘* propitiation through faith in his blood.” It was the free 


grace of God that provided a Saviour, and though the par- — 


don ,of sin cost the Redeemer dear, it is dispensed to us 
freely, without money and without price. Our sins are not 
to be regarded as a pecuniary, but asacriminal debt. Our 
creditor was not obliged to accept of payment from the 
surety, but might have demanded it from the original 
debtors. To provide such a surety, and to accept of such 
payment, was an astonishing display of rich, free, and sove- 


SECTION VY. 
Of the moral tendency of the Atonement. 


Our author very properly observes, that we should prefer 


those views of religion, which are most conducive to good 
morals. On this ground, the doctrine of the atonement is 
" greatly preferable to the unscriptural views of Anti-trinita- 
rians. Anti-trinitarian views are hostile to morality in two 
respects. 1, In reference to the law. 2, In reference to 
sin. 

1. Anti-trinitarianshave mean ideas ofthe moral law. They 
think that it may be violated with impunity—that, thotigh 


149 


God has attached a penalty to the violation of his law, he is 
not bound to inflict that penalty ; but may pardon sin with- — 
out a satisfaction. Such ideas of the law of God have a 
direct tendency towards vice and immorality. What doc- 
trine can be more favourable to vice ?—What doctrine can 
be more hostile to virtue, than the doctrine which teaches, 
that vice may- pass with impunity, and that sin may be 
pardoned without a satisfaction ? The enemies of the atone- 
ment are enemies of the moral law, and, therefore, enemies 
to morality. Though constantly. declaiming in favour of 
_ moral virtue, they sap the very foundations of morality, by 
bringing into contempt the moral law of God. It is the 
observation of an eminent English divine, that all errorg 
whatever may be resolved into opposition to the moral law. 
The doctrine of the atonement is a doctrine according to 
godliness, and is highly favourable to morality ; for it has 
its foundation—at least as taught by Calvinists—in the im- 
mutability of the divine law*—it goes upon the principle, 
that though the heavens and the earth may pass away, yet 
a jot or a tittle can in-no wise pass from the law till ail be 
fulfilled. 

2. Anti-trinitarian views are hostile to “good morals,” 
not only as they lower the standard of morality, and degrade 
the moral law, but also, as they represent sin as an evil of 
a comparatively trifling nature. Dr. B. reasons thus: 

‘« But grant, that Christ died to expiate the sins of the 
“‘ world, how can the death of one be an equivalent for 
** pardoning the accumulated transgressions of millions, for 
““a succession of ages? To obviate this objection, the 
‘* advocates for satisfaction are driven to a greater excess 
‘“‘ of extravagance. They say, it is true, that the offences 
‘“* of mankind were infinite in number and degree ; and 
** therefore it was necessary that the satisfaction should be 
‘* infinite ; and accordingly a being of infinite merit and 
“excellence was sacrificed, in order to atone for them. 
‘* But, in the first place, the sins of the world were not in- 
‘< finite: for as man is a finite and limited being, so every 
‘« thing pertaining to him is finite and limited ; his existence 

-** and his powers of doing good or evil: his virtues and his 
“vices. Guilt is, no doubt, aggravated by the relation in 


é . 


’ -*On the moral tendency of the Atonement, Fuller on Systems, and 
Stevenson on the Atonement, may be perused with great advantage, 
13* 


150 

‘¢ which we stand to the authority offended, as of a son to 
‘< his father ; but, on this principle, every offence against 
‘¢ God would be chargeable with infinite atrocity, and 
‘«* would require the expiation and atonement of an infinite 
‘¢ being.”’ ‘ 

Arminians agree with Anti-trinitarians in denying the in- 
finite evil of sin. The preceding reasoning, therefore, is 


applicable not to the Arminian, but only to the Calvinistic — 


view of the atonement. Candour should have induced the — ; 


Doctor to distinguish. Archbishop Magee (Atonement, — 


vol. i. p. 171, writes thus: ‘* On this subject, Dr. Priestly © 


‘thus represents the arguments of the Orthodox. Sin, 


*‘ being an offence against an infinite Being, requires an © 
‘¢ infinite satisfaction, which can only be made by an in- — 
« finite person ; that is, one who is no less than God him- ~ 
“‘ self. Christ, therefore, in order to make this infinite — 


+ 


_** satisfaction for the sins of men, must himself be God, 


: 


y. 
“4 


‘equal to God the Father. With what candour this has — 


‘« been selected, as a specimen of the mode of reasoning, 
‘‘ by which the doctrine of atonement, as connected with 
‘‘ that of the divinity of Christ, is maintained by the Kstab- 
é< lished Church, it is needless to remark. That some few 
‘‘ indeed have thus argued, is certainly to be admitted and 
‘lamented. But how poorly such men have reasoned, it | 


‘‘ needed not the acuteness of Dr. Priestly to discover. | 


«« On their own principles the reply is obvious—that sin — 


‘«< being committed by a finite creature, requires only a 


‘¢ finite satisfaction, for which purpose a finite person might - 
‘‘ be an adequate victim.’”’ With great deference to the | 


Archbishop, I must confess myself one of those ‘* poor — 


‘«< reasoners,’? who believe that sin is infinite and requires — 


an infinite satisfaction. Nor am I at all convinced of my © 


error, either by the reasoning of Doctor B., or that of the — 
celebrated author just now quoted. The former of these — 
“writers reasons thus: «‘ As man is a finite, and limited © 
«< being, every thing pertaining to him is finite and limited.” — 


This I deny. Is man’s duration finite and limited ? Surely 


e. 


not. His soul is immortal—Again, if man may be the © 


subject of infinite or eternal misery, may he not, on the 


same principle, be the subject of infinite guilt ? Though — 


man, therefore, is a finite and limited being, it is not true 
that every thing pertaining to him is finite and limited. I 


ask Doctor Bruce—Why may not the sin of a finite being — 
be infinite, as well’as his duration, his happiness, or his — 


a 
4 


151 


misery? Sin is infinite; because committed against an 
infinite God—because it is the violation of an infinite obli- 
_ gation. Our author himself grants—that ‘* guilt is aggra- 
‘‘ vated by the relation in which we stand to the authority 
*« offended, as of a son to his father.”’ Upon this principle, 
the more amiable the father, the greater our obligation to 
love him—the more worthy the father, the greater our obli- 
gation to esteem him—the greater the authority of the father, 
_ the greater our obligation to obey him. If the father is pos- 
_ sessed of one degree of amiableness, dignity, and authority, 
Wwe are under one degree of obligation to love, esteem, and 
obey him.—If he is possessed of a thousand degrees of 
_ amiableness, dignity and authority, we are under a thousand 
degrees of obligation to love, esteem and obey him.—If 
possessed of infinite amiableness, dignity, and authority, we 
are under infinite obligations to love, esteem, and obey him. 
It follows, of course, that if we violate these infinite obliga- 
tions, we incur infinite guilt. Who will deny, that we are 
under infinite obligations to love, esteem, and obey our 
_ heavenly Father, and that in violating these obligations our 
guilt is infinite ? | 
To this reasoning, I know, it has been objected, that if 
every sin is infinite, all sins must be equal ; for nothing can 
be greater than that which is infinite. But this conclusion 
does not follow; for one infinite may be greater than 
another. An infinite surface is greater than an infinite 
straight line, and an infinite solid than an infinite surface. 
Or, in other words ; an object infinitely long and broad, is 
greater than one only infinitely long ; and an object infinite- 
ly long, broad, and deep, is greater than one that is only in- 
finitely long and broad. _AIl objects infinitely long are equal 
in that dimension, length ; but they may differ widely in 
other dimensions : so all sins, though equal in this one ag- 
gravation of being committed against an infinite God, may 
nevertheless be very different in respect of other ageraya- 
“tions. «‘ Some sins, in themselves,” says our Westminster 
divines, ‘‘ and by reason of several aggravations, are more 
- * heinous in the sight of God than others.” And again: 
“« Every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse, both in this 
- life, and in-that which is to come,’’* | 
Can Dr. B. resist the force of the preceding reasoning ? 
_ EER SESE ISRO SS ROR EE Weare ek 
* These principles have been ably, I had almost said mathematically, 
‘demonstrated by President Edwards. 


152 


He cannot. It is true, he considers it highly absurd; but 
it is no less true, that he fully admits it! In the very act of 
opposing it, he fully admits it! He admits the premises, 
that ‘* guilt is aggravated by the relation in which we stand 
‘« to the authority offended ;’’ and he admits the conclusion, 
that ‘‘on this principle, every offence against God would 
‘be chargeable with infinite atrocity, and would require 
* the expiation and atonement of an infinite being,” Now, 
this is all we contend for. The highest Calvinist can ask no 
more. Iam quite aware, indeed, that such an admission 
is a flat contradiction to what the Doctor is endeavouring 
to prove. He is endeavouring to prove, that sin is NoT in- 
finite ; and that it does not require an infinite satisfaction : 
and yet he fully admits the very reverse. How powerful is 
truth! How inconsistent and contradictory is error! Arch- 
bishop Magee grants, that from the Divinity of Christ we 
may infer ‘“ the great heinousness of human guilt, for the 
‘¢ expiation of which it was deemed fit, that so great a Be- 
*‘ ing should suffer.’? But why not infer injinite guilt ?— 
Would God, who does nothing in vain, apply an infinite 
remedy toa finite disease ?—Would this be fit? Would 
this be proper? An infinite atonement to expiate finite 
guilt, in my humble apprehension— 


‘6 Resembles ocean into tempest wrought, 
‘© To waft a feather, or to drown a fly.” 


From the infinite value of the atonement we may surely in- 
fer the infinity of sin. Calvinists—I speak of them in 
general, for some individuals do not contend for the infinity 
of sin—Calvinists see more atrocity in one single sin, than 
Socinians, or Arians, or even Arminians, see in all the sins 
of all mankind! Sin, according to Socinian and Arian 
views, is comparatively nothing—an evil of a very trifling 
nature—a kind of cutaneous disease, that does not require 
any powerful remedy. According to Calvinistic views, sin 
is a disease of an inveterate, malignant, and alarming na- 
ture—a disease which no medicine can cure, but only the 
healing balm of the Redeemer’s blood. I appeal now to 
the candid reader—Which of the two systems is more favour- 
able to morality ? that which represents sin as a compara- 
tively trifling evil? or that which regards it as infinitely ma- 
lignant and atrocious? Surely no person possessed of the 
slightest degree of candour, can hesitate for a moment to 


pronounce that system most favourable to morality, whieh — 


153 

regards sin as the greatest evil. Still farther, we may ob- 

serve ; as the friends of the atonement conceive themselves 

‘infinitely deeper in debt, than its enemies do ; so they con- 

ceive that God forgives them infinitely more ; will they not 

therefore love more? In proportion as Socinians and Ari- 

ans see little need of a Saviour, in the same proportion 

they will feel themselves under little obligation, of course. 
they will love but little ; and, as love is the fulfilling of the 

Taw, their obedience will be proportionally defective. It 

is, therefore, demonstratively evident, that the doctrine of 
‘the atonement is a doctrine according to godliness; and 

that it is incomparably more favourable to good morals, - 
than the Socinian or Arian hypothesis. 


* 


SECTION VI. 
Extent of the Atonement. 


_ With Dr. Bruce, I fully agree in reprobating that illiberal- 
ity which confines the benefits of redemption to those who 
are baptised—or to those who belong to a particular church, 
sect, or party. In common with all Calvinists, I firmly be- 
lieve in the sufficiency of the atonement. I believe that the 
blood of my Redeemer is of infinite value, and sufficient to 
- gave the whole human family—But the question is, Was it 
60 designed? Did God design to save all mankind by the 
death of his Son?—Did Jesus Christ design to save all 
tmankind by laying down his life? Arminians, as well as 
‘Socinians and Arians, answer tuese questions in the affirmi- 
tive.— Calvinists answer them in the negative. 'To suppose, 
that God designed to save all mankind, and yet, that. all 
mankind will not be saved, appears to me absurd, I had al- 
most said, blasphemous. 'To me it appears self-evident, 
that God’s designs can never be frustrated—that his inten- 
tions can never be disappointed. If he designed that all 
should be saved, all would be saved; for, ‘‘ who hath re- 
«< sisted his will?’ Ifhe designed that all should be saved, 
and yet all are not saved, then the divine design is frustrated, 
and the Divine Being is unhappy! Every being must be _ 
unhappy in proportion as his designs are frustrated, and his 
intentions disappointed. In proportion to the greatness 
of the designer, and the grandeur of his designs, must be 
the greatness of his disappointment and mortification, if he 
fail in the accomplishment. Now, as God is an infinite 


154 


Being, and the design of saving souls is an infinite design, 
in the loss of every soul the Divine Being must feel infinite 
disappoiutment and mortification. In a word; he must be 
tnfinitely miserable!!! Such is the blasphemous but una- 
voidable consequence of maintaining, that God designed to 
save all mankind by Jesus Christ ; or that Christ shed his 
blood with an intention to save the whole human family.* 
The Arminian doctrine of a universal atonement is clog- 
ged with a variety of other absurdities. If it is absurd to sup- 
pose, that God sent his Sen to do that which he previously — 
knew would never be done; and. that Jesus Christ shed | 
his blood to accomplish that which he previously knew _ 
would never be accomplished. is it nat equally absurd to 
suppose, that the same debt should be twice exacted, first 
from the sinner and then from the surety ?—that Jesus 
Christ should suffer on the cross for the redemption of those 
who were at that very moment suffering the vengeance of — 
eternal fire! Is it not equally absurd to suppose, that Jesus 
Christ would shed his bloed for the whole human family, 
and yet would refuse to pray for them? (John xvii. 9,) «I 
“* pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those 
“‘ whom thou has given me out of the world.””, The Serip-- 
tures teach no such absurdities. They teach, that Christ 
laid down his life for the sheep; but they no where assert, 
that he died for the goats. They teach, that he died to gather 
together in one. the children of God, which were scattered 
abroad ; and that he died for his chureh. (Eph. v. 25,} 
«* Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
* Church, and gave himself for it.” If the love of Jesus 
Christ in dying for his church was not peculiar and discri- 
minating, it would not be a proper object of imitation for 


_ © At a Missionary meeting, I once heard a very sensible Armin- 
tan addressing a large audience, on the propriety of prayer for. the 
conversion of the heathen. Reasoning from that beautiful promise 
made to the Redeemer, “ He shall see of the travail of his soul, and 
* shall be satisfied.” he said, with great earnestness and emphasis, 
& And he will not be satusfied: he will not be content, while there is 
“ one soul that tz not brought home to:himzelf.” Had not the impro- 
priety of disturbing the harmony of such a meeting prevented me, I would 
have immediately added; “ Then the Redeemer nerer will be satis- 
*< fied !—he never will be content !—he must be for ever miserable?” If 
the Redeemer will never be satisfied nor content, till every individual 
of the human family is saved; and if every individual will never be sa- 
ved ;—the conclusion is inevitable—that the Redeemer will never be 
salisfied nor content! Let any Arminian show, if he be able, that the : 
faa of universal atonement docs not lead to such blasphemous con- 

lysions. ? 


155 


husbands. The doctrine of a definite atonement, or parti- 
cular redemption, might be established by a multitude of 
other arguments, deduced both from Scripture and reason. 
To a mind unprejudiced, and capable of reasoning, the pre- 
ceding, I hope, will be found satisfactory. 
Tam perfectly aware, that a multitude of Scriptures seem 
to favour the opposite doctrine. I know it js written that 
Christ died for all—for the world—the whole world—and 
every man. Every attentive reader of the Bible must, 
however, be sensible, that such terms are frequently used 
in a limited sense. We read that all the world wondered 
after the beast, while, at the same time, there were with the 
lamb one hundred and forty-four thousand. John declared 
that the whole world was lying in wickedness, when thou- 
sands were converted to the faith of the Gospel. Our Sa- 
viour himself declared, that, from the days of John the 
Baptist, the kingdom of God was preached, and every man 
was pressing into it: when, in fact, the far greater part of 
the human family had never heard of the kingdom of God. 
Multitudes of similar instances might be adduced to show, 
that there is nothing more common in Scripture, than the 
words all, every, world, whole world, &c. taken ina limited 
acceptation. But it may be asked—If Christ died only for 
the elect, why were such universal terms employed in refer- 
ence to his death? I answer, to correct. the prejudices of 
the Jews, who foolishly confined salvation to themselves. 
‘He is the propitiation for our Sins,” says the Apostle 
John, “ and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world’’—that is, He is the propitiation for the sins, 
not only of us Jews, but also of the Gentiles—of all his 
sheep through the whole world. That these universal terms 
are not to be taken in their most extensive signification, is 
evident, not only from the reasons mentioned above; but 
also from this, that though the most extensive terms are 
used in English, yet not in the original Greek. The word 
“sxadros, in Greek, signifies every individual ; and arvasg and 
duuros, signify all collectively ; but none of these most ex- 
tensive terms are ever applied to the death of Christ. Tt 
may however, be still further asked, If Christ did not die 
for all indiscriminately, why is salvation offered indiscrim}- 
nately to all? Why does God offer salvation to all, if he 
never designed that all should be saved? Is not this to 
tantalize the creature? Does it not argue insincerity in 
God? This objection is, at first sight, plausible; but it 


156. 


may be retorted thus: If God foreknew from all eternity 
those who would reject salvation through Jesus Christ, why 
does he offer them salvation? Why does he invite those 
that he previously knew would reject the invitation? Does 
not this argue insincerity in God? Let the Arminian, the 
Socinian, or the Arian, show me, that it does not argue in- 
sincerity in God to offer salvation to the man that he pre- 
viously knew would reject it, and I will show him, that it 
does not argue insincerity in God to offer salvation to the 
man whom he never designed tosave. ‘Thus the objection 
might be retorted. The difficulty arising from apparent 
insincerity in God, is common to all systems of divinity. 
The Socinian, the Arian, the Arminian, and the Calvinist, 
are all equally concerned to solve it. My views of this 
difficult subject, I shall endeavour to explain by the follow- 
ing illustration. 

In the late French revolutionary war, the Sans Culotte, 
in an engagement with the English, was sunk. Her crew 
refused to accept of quarter. They went down with shouts 
of Vive la Republique! Supposing that the English admi- 
ral had picked up a certain number of the drowning french, 
and saved their lives. Supposing, moreover, that he had 
sent out a boat, and offered to save the rest, knowing, at 
the same time, that they would reject his generous offer— 
Could such an admiral be justly charged with insincerity ? 
His design in sending out the boat, it is true, was not to 
* gave them; for he knew they would not accept of salva- 
tion; but his design was to exhibit to all the clemency of 
the English, and, at the same time, the horrid infatuation 
and implacable enmity of the French. If the obstinacy of 
the French was so great, and their enmity against the En- 
glish so inveterate, that they would rather drown than be 
indebted to British clemency, would not every person say, 
that they deserved their fate—that their blood was upon 
their own heads ? In this case, those who were saved, 
were wholly indebted for their salvation to the gracious cle- 
mency of the British admiral ; and those who were drowned 
had no apology to plead ; the admiral offered his clemency, 
but they basely and ungratefully despised and rejected it. 
They deserved to die, for they chose death rather than life. 
Such is the situation of sinners drowning in a deluge of 
wrath. Life and salvation are offered to all indiscriminately ; 
and all are disposed to treat the offer with contempt. Such 
is the enmity of the human heart against God, and his law, 


157 

and his Son, that none would come to the Redeemer for 
life—all would despise and reject the life-boat of salvation: 
But God, in his infinite mercy and grace, destroys the en- 
mity of some, bends their stubborn wills by the influence of 
his Spirit, and makes them willing in the day of his power 
-—willing to accept of salvation freely, without money and 
without price. The rest perish, not because they are re- 
probates—not because Christ did not die for them : but be. 
cause they are sinners—because they are rebels—because 
they will not lay down their arms—they will not be recon- 
ciled to God—they will not come to his Son, that they may 
have life. When a drowning man is offered a boat, if, In- 
stead of embracing the offer, he should cavil and dispute 
about the design of the offerer, would he not be regarded 
as insane? Undoubtedly he would. How much greater 
the folly and madness of sinners, who, instead of accepting 
salvation through Jesus Christ, as it is freely offered to them 
in the Gospel, stand cavilling at the decrees of God, and 
the particularity of redemption—curiously prying into the 
secret counsels of the Almighty, and foolishly inquiring, 
whether God, by. sending his Sop, intended their salvation, 
or whether Jesus Christ shed his blood for them! Oh the 
stupidity and infatuation of men ! 

The ministers of Jesus should offer the Gospel indiscrimi- 
nately to all. They should address rebels in the language 
of the apostle ; (2 Cor. v. 20,) “We are ambassadors for 
‘Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray 
*‘ you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.’ Whilst, 
in thoughts that breathe, and words that burn, they call, in- 
vite, and expostulate, they should at the same time fervently 
pray, that the Gospel may come, not in word only, but in 
power—that, by the blessed agency of the Divine Spirit, it 


may happily prove the power of God, and the wisdom ot 
God unto salvation. 


4 


158 


CHAPTER VI. 
Original Sin. 


_ Tur Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, our author attacks 
in his tenth sermon. In entering on this important subject, 


- he abandons his “‘ sure guide,’’* and contradicts himself. He 


\ 


asserts (p. 45,) that if any doctrine is not plainly declared 
in every one of the four Evangelists, we may be assured, 
that ‘it ts not even an important truth.’ Inthe com- 


mencement of this sermon he assures us, that the doctrine — 


of original sin is not to be found in any of the Gospels, for 
our Saviour, he maitains, has not said one word about it: 
yet, strange to tell, he/nevertheless grants, that ‘it may be 
“¢ an important truth.”’ In the one page he asserts, that it 
is not even an important truth ; in the other he admits, that 
such a doctrine may be an important truth. Thisis Dr. B. 
versus Dr. B.! It is a trite observation, that ‘* sometimes 
“¢ second thoughts are best.’’ In this instance the proverb 
is verified. I am glad to find our author recanting—giving 
up a canon so unscriptural, so unreasonable, and at last 
candidly. admitting, that a doctrine, though not contained 
in all the Evangelists, may nevertheless be an important 
truth ; and particularly, that the doctrine of original sin 
may be an important truth. How glad should I be to find 
him admitting, not only that it may be, but that it actually 
is, an important truth. This instance, I am sorry to say, 
is not the only one calculated to show, that the Doctor 
passed too high a eulogium on his volume of sermons, when, 
in his preface, he pronounced it “* consistent with itself and 
‘‘ the Gospel.”’ | | 

In the introduction to his sermon on original sin, the 
Doctor has not only contradicted himself, he has also con- 
tradicted matter of fact. He asserts, that ‘‘ the advocates 
‘© of the popular notion of original sin do not pretend to 
‘* appeal to any of our Lord’s discourses in favour of their 


* If Dr. B. has not sufficient faith to follow his own ‘sure guide,” 
how can he expect the first Presbyterian Congregation in Belfast to 


follow it? 


159 


“ opinion.”’: Now this assertion is the very reverse of the 
fact. ‘The fact is, that the advocates of the popular notion. 
of original sin do appeal to our Lord’s discourses, - They 
appeal to his discourse to Nicodemus, “ That which is born 
“* of the flesh, is flesh.”” The very first doctrines which our 
blessed Lord taught Nicodemus, were those which Dr. B. 
rejects—the doctrines of original sin and regeneration. 
Our Saviour taught that we are born, not only depraved, but 
totally depraved, not only fleshly, but flesh itself. He 
taught, that such is our natural state of depravity, that «« Ex- 
“* cept a man (sig any one, man, woman, or chil ) be born 
‘« again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 3 
To account for the origin of evil, is one of the most diffi- 
cult problems in divinity. No view of the subject, perfectly 
free from difficulties, has, as yet, been exhibited to the 
world. The account given in the sacred volume is brief : 
and from it have been formed a variety of opinions. These 
may be all reduced to three—1, That by Adam’s fall we 
are both depraved and guilty. 2, That by Adam’s fall we 
are only depraved, but not guilty. 3, That by Adam’s fall 
we are neither depraved nor guilty. 
The first of these opinions is that of the Calvinists,— 
That we are all guilty of Adam’s first sin, they prove from 
various texts of Scripture ; but particularly from the fifth 
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, from the twelfth to 
the nineteenth verse inclusive. In this portion of Scripture 
we are assured, that by one man sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that 
all (e9’ » in whom) all have sinned— that by the offence of 
“one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation—and 
that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. | 
The penalty attached to Adam’s disobedience was death : 
“In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’’ 
This penalty was inflicted, not only on Adam, but on his 
posterity. Now Calvinists infer—-and I think justly—that 
if Adam’s posterity had not been involved in his guilt, they - 
would not have been involved in his punishment—in the 
penalty attached to his disobedience.—Doctor Bruce main- 
tains, that this penalty was only temporal death; but that 
itfincluded eternal death is evident from the words of the 
~Apostle : “* The wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God 
“is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now, if 
that life which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ is — 


Be 


160 


eternal life, the antithesis shows, that that death which is 
the wages of sin must be eternal death.* 

If, therefore, we. believe the sacred oracles rather than 
Dr. B., we will believe, that, in consequence of Adam’s 
sin, his posterity are not only exposed to. temporal death, but 
death ezernal ; and that they are also spiritually dead—“alie- 
‘‘ nated from the life of God—dead im trespasses and sins.” 
This spiritual death,-or depravity of nature, is every where 
taught in thesacred volume. ‘That God made man upright, 
is a dictate both of Scripture and reason. ‘The Scriptures 
assure us, that the Deity created Adam in his own image 
- and-after his own likeness. Having lost this moral image, 
che could not transmit it to his posterity. Accordingly we 
read, that Adam begat a son in his own image; and the 
Apostle assures us, that we have born the image of the — 
earthly Adam. ‘‘ What is man, that he should be clean ; 
‘© and he that is born of a woman,-that he should be righte- 
‘¢ ous? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? 
‘‘ not one.’? David acquiesced in this doctrine when he 
exclaimed, ‘ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin 
‘© did my mother conceive me!’’. That this depravity is uni- 
versal, is abundantly taught in the sacred volume, particu- 
larly in the Epistle to the Romans, third chapter, from the 
tenth verse: ‘“* There is none righteous, no not one; there 
«« ig none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh 
‘‘ after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are 
‘together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth | 
‘“'good, no; not one.—Every mouth must be stopped, and — 
‘ all the world be found guilty before God.”? Against such — 
descriptions Dr. B. cautions his hearers thus : ‘You are. 
- not to be deluded by general descriptions of the depravity — 
‘© of the world; for those passages do not apply to every 


* Mr. M‘Affee says, that by quoting this text in my defence of creeds 
and confessions, I have made a grand mistake ; for the Apostle was 
uot speaking there of the penalty of the Adamic covenant, but of that 
annexed to the covenant of grace.—If Mr. M‘Affee be open to convic-. 
tion, he may at once be convinced, that the grand mistake is made, not — 
by we, but by himself.—he may be convinced of this by comparing the 
text in question with the last verse of the preceding chapter. “That @ 
6ags sin hath reigned unto death; even so might grace reign through 
“ righteousness unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. This, 
text 1s exactiy parallel with the former, and the Apostle is undeniably : 
treating of the penalty of the Adamic covenant. Many a@ grand mis- — 
take is made by neglecting to compare Scripture with Scripture, s 


161 

‘* individual, but to the general corruption of mankind.’’ 
The Apostle assures us, that the corruption is universal. 
The Doctor assures us, that it is not universal, The 
Apostle assures us, that there is not one solitary exception, 
none, none, none, none, no not one, no not one : but, in the 
face of all this, the Doctor assures us, that there are excep- 
tions, and that such ‘“ passages do not apply to every indi- 
‘‘ vidual, but to the general corruption of- mankind.’’ 
Reader of this treatise! believest thou the Prophets ? 
Believest thou the Apostles? I know that thou believest. 
Learned divines may delude thee ; but the Deity never can! 

Such isthe Calvinistic doctrine relative to the fall of Adam, 
and the effects of that fall upon his posterity, and such ap- 
pears to be the scriptural account of that mournful, and all 
important event. Calvinists do not pretend to be able to 
assign all the reasons which influenced the divine mind in 
connecting so intimately the fate of Adam with that of his 
posterity. We see, however, something very similar in the 
connexion of one generation with another. The virtues and 
the vices, the happiness and miseries of men, we plainly see, 
are greatly influenced by previous connexions and relations 
—by ten thousand adventitious circumstances—circumstan- 
ces over which they themselves had no control. « Who would 
deny that such connexions, relations, and circumstances, 
have a powerful influence on human conduct ; and yet we 
all acknowledge—for our own consciousness proves it— 
that man is a free and an‘accountable agent. ‘The placing — 
of Adam at the head of our family, as our representative, 
was a constitution, which, viewed abstractly, appears char- 
acterised both by wisdom and goodness.—Adam was much 
better qualified to stand for us, as our representative, than 
we would have been to stand for ourselves. We come into 
the world children ; our appetites and passions get the start 
of our reason and consciences, and hurry us into vice be- 
fore these higher powers of our nature have acquired suffi- 
cient energy to keep them in check. On this single princi- 
ple alone, some have endeavoured to account for the uni- 
versality of human guilt. ‘This, however,was not the case 
with Adam. His appetites and passions did not get the 
start of his reason and conscience; for he was created not 
-achild, but a man. In this respect it cannot be denied, 
that Adam was much better qualified to stand representa- 
tive for his posterity, than each to stand personally for him- 
self. Besides; Adam saw himself at the head of a nume- 

14* 


162 


rous family, whose happiness or misery was suspended .om 
his good or bad management... If this motive has a power- 
- ful influence on men now depraved, and sometimes even on 
the most depraved of men—if it sometimes proves effectual 
to reform the rake and reclaim’ the prodigal—how much 
more powerfully was it calculated to operate on the mind 
of innocent Adam in preserving him in a state of persever- 
ing obedience? In this respect again, federal representa- 
tion appears greatly preferable to personal responsibility.* 
_ Upon the whole ; our opponents may pour forth torrenta 
of declamation and invective against the federal representa- 
tion of Adam; but, onthe abstract question, Whether fed- 
eral representation or personal responsibility were, in its 
own nature, better calculated to secure the happiness of the 
human family—on this abstract question they have never 
yet met us, and, I presume never will. ‘A 
Having thus briefly stated the Calvinistic opinion relative 
to the fall and its effects, we come now to the 
_ Seconp Opinion, whichis that of the Arminians. They 
maintain, that, in conscquence of Adam’s fall, we are all 
depraved, but they deny that the guilt of his first sin is im- 
puted to his posterity. ‘To suppose that we are guilty of a 
sin, committed nearly six thousand years before we were 
born, involves, I confess, a great difficulty. To get rid of 
it the Arminians deny the fact.—They say we come into the 
world depraved, but not guilty. They deny that we come 
into the world guilty, but they admit that we come into the ~ 
world so depraved, that as soon as capable of moral agency 
we must become guilty. Now, how does this relieve the _ 
difficulty? How does this vindicate the justice of God? 
Whereis the difference whether I come into the world guilty, 
er with such an hereditary taint, that in a very short time I 
must become guilty? Besides: I am quite unable to dis-_ 
tinguish between a depraved being and a guilty bemg. A 
‘depraved innocent being appears to me a contradiction in 
terms—as great a contradiction as an honest thief or a white ~ 
negro. Ina word; the Arminian removes the difficulty a lit- _ 
tle farther off; but affords no manner of relief—gives no 
solution. | : 
Tame THIRD Opinion is that of the Pelagians, Socinians, 
Arians, &c. They maintain that we come into the world 
neither guilty nor depraved, but as pure and holy as innocent 


* These topics are ably illustrated by President Edwards on original sin. — 


163 


Adam. This is the opinion of Dr. B. By thus denying 
both guilt and depravity, Socinians and Arians vainly ima- 
gine that they have completely solved the difficulty ; but 
they deceive themselves, and they deceive their followers, 
The difficulty is, indeed, removed a little farther out of view ; 
it is, however, nothing lessened, but rather aug menied. 
Dr. B, admits, that the whole human family sin as soon as 
they become moral agents. Now, the great question is, 
- Why do men universally run into sin as soon as capable of 
- it? The Doctor answers this question by asking another. 
«Can it be difficult,’ says he, «to account for the sinful- 
‘* ness of men at present, surrounded as they are by necessi- 
‘ ties and pleasures, temptations and discouragements ?”’ So 
then, we come into the world neither guilty nor depraved ; 
but, nevertheless, as soon as capable of acting, we-all be- 
come guilty, we all commit sin—we are surrounded with 
“such necessities and pleasures, temptations and discourage- 
ments, that we cannot avoid it.—The temptations with which 
we are surrounded are so powerful, that none have ever 
been able to resist them! The Calvinist tells me, that I 
came into the world guilty. This is a great difficulty ; but 
the Arminian kindly-comes forward to relieve me. He tells 
me that | was not born guilty, but that I am so depraved, 
that in the course of a few years I must become guilty. 
This I regard as very poor comfort indeed! The Arian, 
seeing me still in distress, makes a gencrous proposal of his 
kind offices. You come into the world, says he, neither 
guilty nor depraved ; but you come into a world so full of 
snares and temptations, that there is no hope of your es- 
cape—you must become guilty in a very short time! Cold 
comfort indeed !—May I not address the Arminian, the So- 
cinian, and the Arian, in the language of Job to his mistaken 
friends ; ‘+ Miserable comforters are yeall?” The Calvin- 
ist says, Your disease is coeval with your birth. The Ar- 
minian says, ‘The seeds of disease are in your constitution, 
and the disease itself must make its appearance at a very 
early age. ‘The Arian says, No; you are born in good © 
health, and of a good sound constitution ; but your benevo- 
lent Creator, at your very birth, has plunged you into a pest- 
house, where none have ever escaped the effects of conta- 
gion. Alas! then, say[—IfI am todie of a disease, what 
matter whether that disease be coeval with my birth, arise 
necessarily from a radical defect in my constitution, or be 
eaught by contagion which I cannot avoid? Thus we see, 


— 


4 


164 


that the Arminian and the Arian completely fail in remov- | 


ing the difficulty. But this is not all; their hypotheses, so 
far from casting light on the subject, involve it in difficul- 
ties still more embarrassing and insuperable. In commen- 
ting on the fifth chapter of the Romans, Dr. B. explains the 
terms Justify and condemn thus: (p. 194) « As to justify, 
‘* signifies to make just, to place in the situation of just men 
‘*‘ by pardon ; so this expression to make sinners is equiva- 


‘* lent to condemn. to place men in the situation of sinners. | 
p 


. ‘* Asa guilty person may be treated as an innocent one, by 
‘* being pardoned and received into favour, so an innocent 
** man may be treated as a criminal and condemned.—The 
‘‘ one situation is expressed in Scripture by being justified 
‘* or made righteous, and the other by being made a sinner.’ 
Having thus explained, he goes on tocomment thus ; aft Rat 
‘as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, 
‘‘ or were treated as sinners, being subject to death, by the 
“ sentence of God,” é&c. From these quotations, it ap- 
pears, that Dr. B. agrees with the Calvinists in maintaining, 
that God treats the. posterity of Adam as if they were sin- 
ners; but he differs from them in this: The Calvinists say, 
that God treats us as sinners, because we are sinners, be- 
cause we have all stnned in our federal representative ; but 
the Doctor affirms, that God treats us as sinners, though 
we are perfectly innocent! ‘The Calvinists say, that God 
condemns the guiliy posterity of Adam; but the Doctor 
affirms, that God condemns Adam’s innocent posterity !— 
He condemns to death his own éanocent offspring !—He 
condemns them for a crime they never committed !—in which 
they had no concérn !—of which they were perfectly inno- 
cent!—Thus the learned Dr. B., in the heat of his zeal 
against Calvinism, is forced to charge his Maker with that 
abominable thing which his soul hates—(Prov. xvii. 15), 
‘« He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth 
‘« the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.’’— 
Say now, reader, what system is most reasonable ’—the 
system of the Calvinist, who says, God condemns the guilty ; 
or that of the Arminian or Arian, who says, God condemns 
the innocent ?* 


* In explaining the words justify, condemn; &c. the Dr. appears 
evidently to write without thinking. “In Hebrew,” says he, “ the 
‘simple word, (what simple word?) means to be asinner. In another 
‘ form of the verb, (what verb ) to make one a sinner. And it is so 


~ 


165 


_ Dr. Bruce quotes and condemns the Westminster Divines’ 
description of original depravity. Dr. Millar, of Armagh, 
Seems to justify our author in rejecting that description. 
‘Tt is not unnatural,’’ says he, “ that an exposition of this 
‘* doctrine, so strongly and so harshly stated, should dispose 
‘‘any man of mild dispositions to seek another. interpreta- 
_ ‘tion. Such a temperate statement of this doctrine might 
‘have been found in the ninth article of our church.”’ 
Now, what is the mildness of the ninth article? Let us 
see. The ninth article states, that original sin is the fault 
or corruption of every man that naturally is engendered of 
the offspring of Adam—and that in every person born into 
the world it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation! Where 
now is the mildness? Did ever the Westminster Divines, 
or did ever any Calvinist say, that original sin deserves 
more than God’s wrath and damnation? But, nevertheless, 
if we believe Doctor Millar, the doctrine is stated mildly 
by the Church of England. «+The article, moreover, ig 
concluded,” says he, ‘‘ with observing that the Apostle 
‘‘doth confess, not rigorously denounce, that this same 
“6 concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin, 
‘‘ even avoiding to declare that it is sin in a trueand proper 
‘“‘acceptation of the term.” Now, with great respect, 
‘permit me to ask the learned Doctor, How does it come to 
pass, that original sin is not sin in a true and proper accep- 
. tation of the term, when, at the same time, it is acknow- 
ledged to deserve God’s wrath and damnation? Let Dr. 
‘Millar answer this question if he can. He may defend 
_Arminianism if he please ; but, in defending it, he should 
not quote the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England ; 
particularly, he should not quote the ninth article—an arti- 
cle so highly Calvinistic, 


> 


‘© translated throughout the Old testament.” Strange! So translated ! 
It is not so translated. The very instances adduced by the Doctor to 
prove that it is so translated, prove that it is nof so translated. The 
Jirsl instance is, ‘* Whom the judges shall condemn.” It is not so trans- 
lated here. His second instance is, *¢ If I justify myself, my own mouth 
** will condemn me.” It is not so translated here. His third is, 
* Wilt thou condemn hiim that is most just.’ It is not so translated 
here. It is not so translated in any one of the instances mentioned by 
the Doctor, In adi these instances the word is translated, not fo make 
@ sinner. as Our author affirms, but to condemn. They all prove, not 
what they were adduced to prove, but the very reverse—they prove 
not that the Doctor has wilfully violated matter of fact, but they prove 
that he does not always think when he writes, and that his book is not 
always consistent, either with itself or the Scriptures, 


¥ 


166 


? 


With regard to the ‘ strong’”’ and «+ harsh’? language of 


the Westminster Divines, I would only request the candid 


reader to compare that language with the Scriptures referred 
to, and then say if the language of Scripture be not fully 
as harsh as that of the Catechism. After quoting the Di- 
vines’ description of the sin and misery introduced by the 
fall, Doctor B. exclaims, «‘ Thus are children initiated into 
‘* the glad tidings of salvation, and taught to love God and 
‘honour all men.’? The Doctor, no doubt, regarded this 
sentence as a fine stroke of irony: but did he not know. 
that the disease is one thing, and the remedy another ? Did 
he not know, that the description of our sin and misery is 
one thing, and “ the glad tidings of salvation” are another ? 
—and that teaching ‘‘to love God and to honour all men,” 
is another still? Why does he confound things so different ? 
But though these things are so different, and should not 
be confounded, they are not opposite. A description of 
our sin and misery is no way inconsistent with the glad 
tidings of salvation: on the contrary, the one presupposes 
the other. Were we not previously convinced of our sin 
and misery, the good news of the Gospel would not be re- 
garded as glad tidings at all. The Westminster Divines 
are not like those unskilful physicians, censured by the Al- 
mighty—physicians who heal the wound of the daughter of 
his people slightly, saying, «‘ Peace, peace, when there is 
**no peace.’’? ‘The Westminster Divines, like skilful sur. 
geons, first probe the wounds of sin, and then apply to them 
the healing balm of the Redeemer’s blood. Doctor B., 
breaking through his irony, and blending literal with figura- 


tive language, alleges that the description of our original 


sin, depravity, and misery, given by the Westminster Divines, 
is calculated to counteract the affectionate invitation of 
their gracious Lord, «« Suffer little children to come unto 
‘«me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
'* heaven.” Now, f confess myself utterly at a loss to know, 
how such a description can possibly counteract such an. 
invitation. The greater the depravity and guilt of children, 


the greater necessity, I should think, to bring them toJesus 


Christ the Saviour. On the contrary ; if they have no de- 
pravitynor guilt at all, what necessity to bring them at all ? 
A Socinian or Arian might reason thus: Jesus Christ came 
into the world to save. sinners: but my child is no sinner ; 
and therefore Jesus Christ did not come into the world to 
save it; consequently, I need not bring it to Jesus Christ! 


167 3 ae 


Again: Jesus Christ came to seek and save that which was 
lost: but my child is not lost; therefore Jesus Christ did 
not come to save it ; consequently, I need not bring it to 
Jésus Christ.! ‘Once more = Jesus Christ came to save 
from the wrath to come: but my child is not a child of 
wrath ; therefore, Jesus Christ did not come to save it ; and 
consequently, I need not bring it to Jesus Christ! J will 
not suffer my little children to come to the Reedemer. 1 
see no need. They are not sick ; and therefore have 
no need of Jesus as a physician! They are not sin- 
ners ; and therefore have no need of Jesus as a Sayi« 
our!’ They are not defiled: and therefore have no 
need of the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness ! - In 
a word ; the little children of Socinians and Arians wil] re 
quire a separate apartment in heaven; for they cannot join 
the general assembly in their song of praise—<«« Unto him 
‘“that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
‘ blood—to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. 
‘* Amen.” | if 
Doctor B. asserts, that the little children brought to our 
Saviour, were the children of Pagans or Jews, neither ba 
tized nor converted. How does he know this? He does 
not know it at all. The probability is, that the facts were 
the very reverse of his Statement. It is quite improbable 
that the children were Pagans, for the Redeemer wag 
preaching the Gospel, not to Pagans, but to Jews in the 
coast of Judea beyond the Jordan. That the children were 
not baptized, is equally improbable. It is in the highes¢ 
degree probable, that the parents were believing Jews, 
Had they been unbelievers, they would not have brought 
their children to the Redeemer to receive a blessing. It ig 
also highly probable that the children were previously bap. 
tized. The very first ordinance to which believing parents 
would naturally bring their children, would be the initiating 
ordinance of baptism. That the children were not con-. 
verted, but vessels of wrath, is a gratuitous assumption, | 
still more improbable than the preceding. Notwithstandin 
all these improbabilities, the Doctor makes his assertiong 
with as much dogmatic assurance as if delivering oracles; 


Indeed, his general manner shows, that he calculates largely 


_ To render the doctrine Of original sin as shocking ns 
possible, Dr. B. exclaims thus: (p. 201) “ With what feel. 
‘ing of horror and disgust, as well as pity, must & parent 


168 


‘s who really believes this doctrine, behold his child, when 
‘he presents him for baptism, and hears him denounced as 
‘©a child of wrath, under the curse of God, and heir only 
‘of hell fire!’? Answer. The believing parent, whilst 
presenting his child in the ordinance of baptism, is filled 
_ with feelings of love, and gratitude, and joy, whilst, after 
contemplating, with deep humility, his child's lost state by 


nature, the eyejof his faith is directed to the blood and water 


which issued from the pierced side of his crucified Re 
deemer—blood for justification, and water for sanctifica- 
tion. His eye affects his heart, whilst he contemplates that 


water which symbolically represents, not only pardon - 


through the Redeemer’s blood, but regeneration through 
his blessed spirit. With feelings of ineffable gratitude and 
joy, he draws water out of the wells.of salvation ; he pleads 
the promises of the Gospel in behalf of his infant offspring 
—that God would pour water upon the thirsty, and floods 
upon the dry ground—that he would pour his spirit upon 
his seed, and his blessing upon his offspring—that God 
would be his God, and the God of his seed. Whilst he 
thus pleads the promises, and anticipates the eternal felicity 
of himself and his offspring, so far from being filled with 
feelings of horror and disgust, he rejoices with joy unspeak- 
able and full of glory. if 

The Doctor proceeds: ‘‘ What respect or reverence can 
‘ca child feel for a parent, who is a bondman of Satan, 
“utterly opposed to every thing that is spiritually good?” 
I answer, For such a parent he cannot feel so much rever- 


ence as for a pious parent, a child of God—and what then? 


Let such a parent flee from the wrath to come. Let him 
repent of his wickedness and pray God, if perhaps the 
thoughts of his heart may be forgiven him, that he may 
escape from the snare of the Devil, and be no longer led 


captive by him at his will. Becoming a child of God by f 
faith, and a favourite of heaven, he is entitled to more © 


respect, and will obtain more respect from his own chil 2 


dren. : 


The Doctor goes on with his interrogatories thus:— — 


‘«‘ With what distrust, aversion, and gloomy horror, must the 
*¢ parents themselves view each other during life, wholly 
«‘ inclined to all evil, and tainted in every action and senti+ 


ment with corruption—with what anguish and despair at 


‘the hour of death?’ Answer.—Let such wicked pa 
rents forsake their ways, and such unrighteous parents their 


169 


thoughts, and let them return unto the Lord and he will 
have. mercy upon them, and to our God, who will abund-. 
antly pardon. Let them look unto the Redeemer and be 
saved. Their distrust will then be turned into confidence 
—their aversion into love—their gloomy horror into the as- 
surance of hope—and their anguish and despair into happi- 
ness and joy. 

The last two questions I might have answered more 
briefly by asking another, viz: What bearing have such 
questions on the doctrine of original sin? Answer.—Nonx 
AT ALL. ee | 

_ The Doctor goes on: ‘¢ What encouragement have pa- 
“‘rents to bring up their children in the nurture and admo- 
‘‘mition of the Lord, if they. think them irreversibly doom- 
“ed to damnation?” Answer.—No parent in his right 
mind ever thought that his children were irreversibly doom- 
-ed to damnation. But what are we to think of that Divine 
who is capable of putting such a question. Shasnauacen 

The Doctor proceeds : «¢« How can young people remem- 
“‘ber their Creator without hatred and terror, who has 
** brought them into existence only to be vessels of wrath ?”’ 
Answer.—Their Creator never brought any people into 
existence only to be vessels of wrath. Quere: Do such 
foul insinuations bear no resemblance. to calumny ? 

The Doctor persists: ‘‘'There was some consistency, at 
** least, in those fanatics who renounced matrimony for fear 

‘of such consequences.’ Answer.—There was no con- 
sistency—such consequences being only bugbears conjured 
up by the fertile imagination of Doctor B., and those 
fanatics to which he refers. All parents are encouraged 
to believe, and then the promise is to them and to. their 
seed. 

_ The Doctor again asks, (p. 202) «« Are not such doc- 

*‘ trines the source of those gloomy thoughts which distract 
**so many pious souls? Do they not deter many from cul- 
‘‘tivating or crediting religion, and harden them in infide- 
lity and iniquity? May we not fear that they impel many 

_ ‘to hurry on their own fate, rather than endure the despon- 

_ “dence, agitation, and torment of mind with which they. 

“are doomed to await it?” Answer.—Such is not the na- 

_tive tendency of the doctrines. Though, in some instances, 

_ such doctrines may beso abused, that is no argument - 

against them. To argue against any thing from its abuse, 

- 18 not logic, but sophistry. If soothing men’s minds, calm- 
i 15 7 


170 


ing their fears, and lulling’ their consciences to sleep, be 
meritorious actions, Arian divines' deserve’ great’ praise. 
But what should we think ‘of that watchman, who, when the 


robber is wrenching the door, or the flames bursting from: 
the window, should dissipate all fear by the pleasing intel: ' 
ligence, ‘* All is well—a’ fine morning !”” How muchmore — 
faithful would we regard that watchman, who, without 
ceremony, and with a voice like thunder, should immedi-. 
ately vociferate—Fire! Fire! ‘The horrid sound might: 


injure some weak nerves. In a state of trepidation, one 
might break his arm, and another his leg. ‘These are unfor- 
tunate circumstances, it is true, and much to be deplored ; 
but’ not so deplorable as the fate of those, who, lulled to 
sleep by their treacherous watchman, fall a prey to the de- 
‘vouring element, or perish by the hand of the midnight 
assassin. 3 

The Doctor introduces a confused mass of heterogene- 
ous matter relative to the divine decrees. That God could 
not decree the fall without infringing the free agency’ of 
Adam, has never yet been proved, and, I am convinced, 
never will. Whenever our opponents reconcile the fall 
with divine foreknowledge, we will reconcile it with divine 
decrees. for farther remarks connected with this subject 
we refer our readers to a subsequent part of this treatise, 
when divine decrees will be more formally discussed, and 
the distinction between God’s will of command and will of 
decree explained and established. — , 

‘It is agreed,” says the Doctor, “ that Adam’s trans- 
‘¢ gression and guilt became ours only by. imputation.”’ 
Answer— There never was any such agreement. Weare 
really guilty before God imputes guilt ; for his judgment is 
always according to truth. Our author then asks, ‘+ Did 
this imputation find us sinners or make‘us so?’’* "This 


* Jn the theological discourses of the Rev. James Thompson, of. 
Quarrelwood, Scotland, a work ‘which contains an immense ‘fund of 
accurate’ information on the most important doctrines of religion—in 
a foot-note (Vol. i. p. 74) we find the following assertion :—‘It is not 
“then God’s imputing act that makes them guilty ; but that aet by 
“% which he constituted Adam their moral head.” ‘This sentence 


shows how difficult it is to form accurate ideas, or to express one’s self —— 


accurately on so abstruse a subject. I entirely dissent from ‘this acute’ 
“and. discriminating Divine., God’s actin making Adam our moral head 
could not possibly make us guilty. No act of God could make us 
suilty. atherwise God would be the author of sin. I believe all man- 


Bene pay 


question, and the former assertion, are inconsistent with 
each other, and mutually destroy each other ; for if by im- 
putation alone we become sinners, we were not sinners be- 
‘fore,;-and therefore imputation could not find us sinners. 
The' question, therefore, being inconsistent with the previ- 
ous statement, is absurd, and shows great want of discri- 
‘mination in the querist. If imputation found us sinners, 
ithe Doctor declares that imputation was unnecessary. 
‘What! unnecessary! If so, it is unnecessary to impute 
‘theft to a. man whom we have found stealing, or burglary to 
‘@ man who is found guilty of housebreaking! But our 
author tells us, that if imputation found us sinners, imputa- 
tion was unnecessary. Why? «We might haye perished 
“*hby our own sins.?? But how we could have perished by 
“our own sins, if those sins had not been imputed to us, will 
require all the talents and ingenuity of Doctor B. to explain. 
_The Doctor proceeds: «If it found men innocent and 
‘«made them sinners, then it was the cause of their sins, 
**and God was the author of them. Again—lIf it found 
“us free from sin, the imputation was false, charging those 
** with sin whom it did not find sinners, and God condemned 
*‘men on account of his own false imputation. Pardon 
‘« the expression ; for it is impossible to treat of these mon- 
*“strous positions without contradiction and blasphemy.” 
“Monstrous positions indeed '—and sufficiently interlarded 
with contradiction and blasphemy! but they are his own 
positions—the contradiction his own—the blasphemy his 
own—we disclaim them in toto. I am glad, however, to 
find him on his knees begging pardon. He would do well 
to beg pardon, not only of his hearers, and his readers, but 
of his God, whose majesty he has insulted by such contra- 
dictory and blasphemous statements. Imputation neither 
finds men innocent, nor makes them sinners. Dr. B. should 
have studied imputation before he opposed it. 

Dr. Bruce proceeds to ask, (p. 206) + But why should 
“we be answerable for only one transgression? If our 
IRE NESS OTR i Te Nace memes cacsesmcr ne 
kind are guilty of Adam’s first sin, and TI believe the guilt of that sin 
is imputed to them. I believe these facts, but IT cannot explain them. 
I believe these facts, because the Scripture states them, and because it 
would involve the greatest absurdity to deny them. If they had not - 


been guilty of Adam’s first sin, God would not have condemned the 


whole human family to death for it, God never condemns the in- 
nocent, 


‘ 


+ 


172 


‘© guilt arises from the guilt of Adam, it must be aggravated 
«< by all his offences ; and if we suffer the consequent cor- 
‘¢ ruption of his nature, the penalty of his transgressions, 
‘« should we not also enjoy the benefit of his repentance and 
‘* subsequent obedience ? If we sinned in our federal head, 
‘* we must have repented also.”’ x 

Answer—After Adam committed his first sin, he ceased 
to be our representative ; and therefore it is, that we can 
- neither be charged with his subsequent. sins, nor enjoy the 
benefit of his subsequent repentance. By Adam’s first sin 
the covenant of works was broken, and Adam ceased to be 
our representative. A new covenant, the covenant of grace, 
was immediately proclaimed, in which covenant our blessed 
_ Redeemer represents all his spiritual seed. To all these 
(not the repentance of Adam, but)—the obedience of Jesus 
Christ is imputed for righteousness. 

Dr. B. exclaims, «‘ How strange and paradoxical is it, 
‘“< that while God is forgiving our own sins, he should con- 
‘¢ demn us for the offences of another !’’—Answer—How- 
ever strange and paradoxical it may seem, it is a fact.* 
Still stranger, it is a fact admitted by Dr. B. himself. He 
has fully admitted that the whole human family are con- 
demned to death for the sin of Adam—and what is still more 
strange and paradoxical, that they are all condemned to die 
for acrime of which they are perfectly innocent! Surely 


this is strange and paradoxical indeed! There are no such ~ 


paradoxes in the Calvinistic scheme. i 

Doctor B. is generally careful to exhibit, in as frightful a 
form as possible, the difficulties of the system he opposes, 
whilst he studiously conceals those of his own. We fre- 
quently find him proposing, but seldom answering, objec- 
tions. In this he shows a. good deal of generalship. After 
proposing an immense number of objections to the Calvin- 
istic doctrine of original sin, at the close of his sermon-he 
proposes to answer one, and states it thus: ‘‘ But_it has 
‘« been asked, is not the doctrine of original sin necessary 
‘< to account for the existence of sin? How else came it 
‘¢ into the world? I answer by another question, How did 
‘< original sin take place? Was it by the corruption of 


* When I say, It is a fact, I mean, It isa fact, that we are condemn- 
ed (not for the offences, as the Doctor erroneously states, but) for the 
offence of another. Neither Scripture nor Calvinism represents us ag 
condemned for any offence of Adam but one. ° ney 


173 


‘s Adam’s nature? This will not be pretended,”’ &c. ‘This 
objection is erroneously stated, and as weakly answered. 
We do not ask, “ Is not the doctrine of original sin necessary 
** to account for the ewistence of sin.’? This would be an 
absurd question. But we ask, Is not the doctrine of origi- 
nal'sin necessary to account for the universal prevalence of 
sin and corruption? We do not ask, ‘‘ How else came it 
‘<into the world?’ This would be absurd—but we ask, 
How else has it spread so widely that none have ever es- 
caped its contagion? Such is the real objection ; let us 
now attend to the Doctor’s answer—It is this: “I answer 
*“‘ by another question, How did original sin take place ? 
Was it by the corruption of Adam’s nature ?” 

This is the old exploded answer of Dr. Taylor—an answer 
which President Edwards has triumphantly exposed, as com- 
pletely weak and unphilosophical. 

Because all men capable of moral agency sin, we infer a 
universal propensity to sin—a universal depravity, and cor- 


ruption of nature. No general law wasever better establish- 


ed than this, the law of gravitation itselfnot excepted. How 
do we know that all heavy bodies gravitate towards the 
centre? We know it, and can prove it only by an induc- 
tion of particulars. We know, that in every instance in 
which a stone or heavy body has been projected into the 
air, it has uniformly returned to the surface of the earth. 
Hence we infer, that all heavy bodies gravitate towards the 
centre. In this manner the, law of gravitation is satisfac- 
torily established. And yet, it must be acknowledged, that 
the induction of particulars from which the law is inferred, is 
far from being complete. With regard to thousands and 
millions of stones and other heavy bodies, it has never been 
tried whether they would return to the surface or not. The 
law of sin and death is much better established. Every son 
and daughter of Adam, (Enoch and Elias excepted) from 
the creation of the world down to the age in which we 
live, have died. Hence we infer, That all men are mortal. 
Again: Every son and daughter of Adam, as soon as ca- 
pable of moral agency, have sinned ; and hence we infer— 
That all men are depraved—that there is in all mankind an 
original and inherent propensity to sin.—Thus, it appears, 
that this original inherent propensity to sin, or, in other 
words, this original depravity of nature, is proved by evi-- 
dence stronger, if possible, than that by which the law of 
gravitation is established.—The law of gravitation is estab- 
751 of 


174 


lished by a partial induction; but the depravity of our na- 
ture, by a universal induction of facts. Now, how do our 
opponents, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Bruce, &c. answer this reason- 
ing? Why, they tell us, that if the universal prevalence to 
sin proves an original propensity to sin, in like manner, 
Adam’s first sin proved in him a similar .propensity ;—that 
is to say—one fact is sufficient to prove a general law, as 
well as a universal induction of fact! Such is the philoso- 
phy of that Divine, who regards his neighbours as fanatics, 
enthusiasts, and bigots. Such is the reasoning by which 
Socinian and Arian writers think to run down the doctrine 
of original depravity—a doctrine founded on the clearest 
- dictates both of experience and Divine Revelation. 

To such of my readers as may feel still disposed to reject 
the doctrine of original sin, I would put a few questions : 
Did Adam eat forbidden fruit? and do not we eat forbidden 
fruit? Do we not in ten thousand instances commit those 
sins which God’s pure and holy Jaw forbids ?—Again: Did 


Adam fly from the presence of the Lord? and do not we 


also fly from his presence? do we not frequently feel an 
aversion to secret prayer, and other ordinances, through the 
medium of which we are admitted to the high honour of 
holding intercourse and communion with God ?—Once 
more; Did Adam and ve form apologies for their con- 
duct? Did Adam blame Eve, and Eve the Serpent? And 
do not we form ten thousand apologies for our crimes? Are 
we not apt to blame our neighbours, and every thing around 
us, rather than ourselves ?—Finally ; Did Adam and Eve 
sew fig leaves to conceal theirnakedness ? And arenot we 
prone to think, that the patchwork robe of our own righte- 
ousness—our penances, our pilgrimages, our prayers, our 
tears, our alms, &c. will be perfectly sufficient to render us 
acceptable in the sight of God? Instead of submitting to 
God’s righteousness, do we not go about to establish our 
own righteousness, forgetting that Jesus Christ is the end of 


the law for righteousness to every one that believeth? In_ 


a word: Do we not bear the image of Adam? Are not his 
features strongly marked in our character? With what 
face can we plead freedom from his guilt, whilst we con- 
tinue tohhomologate his crimes? If we say we are perfect, 
we prove ourselves. perverse.—If we attempt to justify our- 
selves, our own mouths will condemn us. Were we to take 
snow water, and wash-ourselves ever so white, yet theAl- 


mighty would plunge us in the ditch, and our own clothes — 


175 


would abhor us.—Let every son of apostate Adam prostrate 
himself before the throne of grace, confessing, $with David, 
‘* Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother 
** conceive me’’—and praying with the same penitent, 
‘« Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right 
“ spirit within me.’ In behalf of myself, my opponent, 
and all my readers, I would humbly and fervently pray— 
That as we have all borne the image of the earthly, so we 
may bear the image of the heavenly Adam. Amen. 


——_—_ 


CHAPTER VIL. 


Predestination. 
SECTION I. 
The Grace of God distinguishing. 


Tuts doctrine has been attacked of late, not only by Dr 

Bz, but by a variety of eminent Arminian Divines of the 
Establishment. In this combined attack, the learned Bishop 
of Down and Connor leads the van, and the celebrated 
Doctors, Millar and Graves, bring up the rear. To attempt 
a defence against such formidable assailants may appear 
presumptuous. Possessing, however, ag I verily believe, 
the vantage ground of truth, I do not despair of ultimate 
success. I shall endeavour to give a reason of the hope 
that is in me with meekness and fear. 

In all our inquiries, whether scientific or religious, our 
wisest mode of procedure undoubtedly is, to advance from 
the consideration of those truths which are more plain, to 
the investigation of those which are more difficult. Keep- 
ing this wise maxim in our eye, were we able to ascertain 
what is the divine procedure respecting man in time, we 
might easily ascertain what were the divine designs from 

all eternity. Creation and Providence are the best com- 
mentary on the divine decrees ; for «« God executeth hig 
** decrees in the works of creation and providence.” Let 
us first inquire, What does God actually do? in order to. 
ascertain what from eternity he intended to do. That the 
Deity does nothing without previous intention and design, — 
€very person who believes in his existence must grant: and 
that none of the divine designs or purposes are formed in 


176 


time, but that they were all formed from eternity, few, I 
presume, will venture to deny. Were we for a moment to 
suppose, that God forms any new design or purpose, we 
must at the same time deny his immutability—we must at 
the same time admit the blasphemous conclusion, that there 
is in the divine mind ‘“* variableness or shadow of turning.” 

If, then, we wish to ascertain the eternal purposes or de- 
crees of God* concerning sinners of our family, we must 
previously answer this question, What is his conduct towards 
them now in time? How does he now treatthem? Ifhe 
makes any distinctions now in time, he must have determin- 
ed and decreed from all eternity to make those distinctions. 
This is a position which no intelligent person will venture: 
to controvert. That distinctions exist now, and that dis- 
tinctions will exist hereafter, is acknowledged by all who 
believe the Bible. That the world is distributed into two 
great classes, believers and unbelievers, penitent and impe- 
nitent, righteous and wicked, or sheep and goats ; and that 
the whole human family will be so divided at the judgment 
of the great day, all Christians admit. Now, the great ques- 
tion is, Who makes this distinction? Is it God, or the cree 
ture? When one man believes, repents, and reforms, 
whilst another remains in unbelief, impenitence and wicked- 
ness, Who makes the difference? Is it the believer him- 
self, or is it God’? A proper answer to this question, f 
humbly conceive, would. settle the whole controversy be- 
tween the Calvinist and the Arminian. If man makes the 
difference, the Arminian. is right ; if God makes the differ- 
ence, the Calvinist is right. Whether the first movements 
in faith and repentance are from God or the creature, accord- 


* Our author asserts, that it was infinitely absurd to puzzle ourselves 
about the divine decrees, and that, as the subject itself has never been 
revealed, it cannot be our duty to study it. Now, my dear Doctor, if 
you and I have never puzzled ourselves about the divine decrees—if 
we have never studied the subject—is it not infinitely absurd to preach 
and write upon it, and to expect the public to attend our sermons, and 
read our treatises? Tfiat our author has never puzzled himself about 
the divine decrees—that he has never studied the subject, is abundantly 
evident. We have already heard him asking, whether the decree that 
man‘should fall, originated before or after the fall. In his sermon on 
mysteries, (and a very mysterious sermon it is,) he speaks of that 
partof the economy of grace, which was planned before Christ appear- 
ed inthe world, A part, of course, was planned after his appearance 
—but, if there are any new thoughts or plans in the mind of the Deity, | 
what-becomes-of his immutability ?. By representing the decrees of the 


: 177 
ing to the judicious statement of the late talented Modera- 
tor of the Synod of Ulster, the Rev. Henry Cooke, is the 
great cardinal point in debate. If the first movements in 
faith and repentance are from God, the Calvinist is right ; 
if from the creature, he is wrong. Arminians maintain that 
- God has put salvation in the power of all—that if they make 
a proper improvement of the talents they possess, they shall 
infallibly arrive at faith, repentance, and salvation. Now 
this system, however plausible at first sight, appears to me 
totally subversive of the grace of God. If all men are 
brought into a salvable state, and if all have talents, which 
_ if they improve they shall be saved ; when one man im- 
_proves his talents and is saved, and another neglects them 
and is condemned ; and when the question is put to the 
mar who is saved, Who made thee to differ ?. May he not 
boldly reply—Mvysntr? For this difference I am no way 
indebted to the grace of God, but wholly to my own exer- 
tions. My neighbour, who is now suffering the vengeance 
af eternal fire, was precisely in the same situation with my- 
self—he enjoyed the same means—he possessed the same 
talents—but he did not improve them, and therefore is mis- 
erable ; whilst improved mine, and therefore am happy ! 
ask my reader, Is not this to exclude the grace of God, 
and to leave ample ground of boasting to the creature ? 
_ The Apostle represents it as a thing quite unreasonable 
and absurd, to suppose that one man should make himself 
to differ from another, with regard to the miraculous gifte 
of the Spirit. I ask; Is it not still more unreasonable and 


+ 


Almighty as secret, belonging purely to God, and not revealed to Us, 
he proves clearly that he has not studied the subject ; for God has re- 
vealed many of his purposes. He has revealed them by creation, by 
providence, and by his word, I know that God decreed from all eter- 
nity to create the world, to govern the world, and to judge the world. 
I know he decreed whatever I know he has done; andI know he dé- 
creed whatever he has told me he will do. Those decrees which have 
neither been revealed by creation, providence, nor: scripture, belong 
purely to God himself; but.those which are revealed belong to us and 
to our children. Of revealed truths, the Doctor says, (p. 63,) “Some 
“are merely speculative, others are calculated to influence our prac- 
* tice. It is evident, that these last are the truths which are said to 
‘“belong to us and to our children.’? So then.only a PART of the 
truths of divine revelation belong to us and to our children. ITs nat 
this deism? orat least semi-deism. In attempting to explode the doc- 
“trine of predestination, our author resorts to his wsual stratagem by 
involyitig the subject in clouds and darkness, god 


178 
absurd, to suppose that one man should make himself to 
differ from another, with regard to what’ is incomparably 


‘more excellent—the graces ofthe Spirit. The Arminian 


makes himself to differ with regard to thergracés of the 
Spirit of God. By. persevering in prayer and. other: duties, 
he obtains faith,-repentance, and other: graces; and thus 


makes himself to differ) from his unbelieving) neighbours. - 


For this difference he isin debt, not to the grace of God, 
but to his own exertions. His principles leave room for 
much greater pride and boasting than those of the proud 
Pharisee. The Pharisee acknowledged, that it was’ God 
that made him to differ: * God, I thank thee that I am not 
‘as other men—or even as this publican.””—The Armi- 


nian can, in consistency with his own principles, make no 


such acknowledgment. The consistent language of his 
prayer would run thus: Thanks to myself, Iam not as other 
men—lI am not unbelieving, impenitent, nor wicked! Hig 


system, as I said before, entirely excludes the grace of God. 


1 know he denies this conclusion ; but he cannot. avoid it. 
Let us hear his defence. I shall give it in the wordsof Dr. 
Graves, the Regius Professor of Divinity in Dublin College, 
and Champlain to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant : 
‘« In our accepting,” says the learned Doctor (Calvinistic 
Predestination, p. 448,) ‘this offer of mercy, is there any 
‘¢ thing whereof to boast ? Will the condemned criminal 
** rather than in being led to an ignominious death ?—will 
the unhappy being, sinking under a pestilential disease, 
boast of his accepting a cure from that Great Physician, 
whom thousands around him hail as the preserver of their 


some dungeon, when his chains are loosened, and the 


‘* heaven, boast, because he walks forth to liberty and life ?”? 


‘This reasoning is, I confess, extremely plausible. It seems _ 


‘< boast of his accepting of, and rejoicing in, a reprieve, 


x 


* lives ?—will the prisoner, plunged in a dark and loath- — 


gate thrown open which confined him from the light of — 


to vindicate the grace of God, and to exclude boasting on — 


the part of man. A. few observations, however, will show, 
that it is quite inconclusive, and altogether unsatisfactory. 
The following question will expose the fallacy: Had God 
left all mankind to perish without any cure, without any ree 


prieve, without ever loosening their chains, or opening the — 


gate of their prison :—in a word; had he suffered all to 


perish without ever putting salvation in their power, would — 


he have acted justly, or unjustly ? Arminians, Socinians, _ 


Le 
and Arians, all maintain, that it would be unjust in God to 
condemn any man, if salvation were not‘in his power, The 
learned Professor himself considers. jt not’ only inconsistent 


act of justice, and not of grace, to put man into a salvable 
state. According to’ the Arminian system, if God brought 
us into being at all, he was obliged in Justice to offer'us a 


was obliged in justice to loosen our chains, and. to set -epen 
our prison doors. All these, according to Arminian  prin- 

_ ciples, were acts of justice, and not of grace. Of course, 
we need not thank the Deity for doing any of these things. 

: doing’ that ‘which his justice 

it would have been unjust not 
to do. - Thus the Arminian scheme cuts up by the roots, 
and entirely excludes the grace of God. There is no grace 
in the foundation of the Arminian system: there isno grace 
in the superstructure : there is no grace in any part of the 
building. It is the very reverse of the system Jaid down in 
the Bible. The Scripture system “is‘a system of grace. 
The foundation is of Srace: the superstructure is of grace : 
and when the top ‘stone is brought forth, it will he with 
‘« shoutings of Grace, Grace unto it.” God’s purposes 
towards his people are purposes of grace : his covenant is 
a covenant of grace: the election of his people is an elee- 
tion of grace : their calling is a calling of grace: they are 
saved and called with a holy calling, not according to their 
works, but according to his purpose and grace, &c.—They 
are justified by grace, adopted by grace, sanctified by grace, 


guishing grace of God, that we are “ prisoners of hope,” 
whilst fallen angels are « reserved in chains of darkness. 
We are convinced that God was under no obligation, either 
to provide or offer us a Saviour, We adore his unmerited 
grace, and exclaim with the Apostle, “Thanks be to God. 
~ Our Arminian brethren entertain different ideas.— They 
imagine, that if we are brought into being at all, we cannot 


180 
be justly abandoned to perish without remedy. ‘The con- 
sequence is, though they do not perceive it, that even the 
giving of God’s own Son is not an act of grace, but of jus 
tice! Had God not sent his Son, but abandoned us all to 
irremediable and unavoidable misery, the Arminian main- 
tains he would have treated us unjustly. From these pre-. 
mises the impious conclusion unavoidably follows, That we 
have no right to thank God for his unspeakable gift :—That 
we have no reason to praise him, either for providing or 
offering a Saviour! To provide a remedy, according to 
Arminians, Socinians, and Arians, was no act of grace, but 
a debt: for it would have been unjust in God, according to 
them, to permit us to perish without a remedy! The truth — 
is, that the atonement of Jesus Christ, according to the 
Arminian scheme, seems rather to be an atonement for the 
injury God has done to us, than for the sins we have com 
mitted against him! Arminians ‘seem to regard our state 
by nature, asa state of great hardship ; and the benefits of 
redemption, as a kind of compensation for the injuries which 
we innocently suffer by the fall. ‘They bring the Deity into 
this dilemma—that he must either not bring us into exist- 
ence ; or, if he do bring us into existence, that he must 
bring us into a salvable state, and grant us some privileges 
to counterbalance and compensate the evils to which we 
have been innocently exposed! Dr. Graves (p. 392) writes 
thus: « Now, if the infant who expires before he has com- — 
‘¢ mitted any crime, be condemned because of Adam’s sin, 
‘< or if he inherits a nature so irremediably corrupt, that on — 
“« his arriving at maturity, present guilt and future perdition — 
‘‘ are to him unavoidable ; conferring on him such an exis- — 
‘s tence, seems irreconcileable with the whole tenor of the 
‘¢ divine attributes and government described in the Scrip-_ 
“ture, as, I trust, has been shown in the preceding dis- — 
“¢ courses.’’* a 


= 


Nett RUD LS CNRS AE EROS ESI aa DER 


* In a still more explicit manner, Mr. M‘Affee, another defender of. | 
the Arminian system, writes as follows: (p. 24,) § As @ consequence \; 
« of the first transgression, all men are not only corrupted in their na-~ 
‘6 ture, but are also subject to temporal death.—As an antidote to the 
‘6 former, Christ is termed the true light that lighteth every man that — 
‘6 cometh into the world. And to make compensation for the latter, a 
‘¢ decree is passed, through the atonement aud resurrection of Christ, — 
6 which determines the resurrection of every man. In proof of the | 
“ latter proposition, I need only refer you, Sir, to 1 Cor. xv. where the — 
‘© Apostle more than once tells us, that if the dead rise not, then ig — 


\ 


es 

The native tendency of Arminian principles is to depre- 
ciate, supersede, and make void the atonement, « Armi- 
“‘ mians in general,” says President Edwards in his Inquiry, 
“* are very inconsistent with themselves in what they say of 
*« the inability of fallen man in this respect. They strenu- 
** ously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require 
‘‘ any thing of us beyond our present power and ability to 
** perform, and also hold, that we are now unable to per- 
‘* form perfect obedience, and that Christ died to satisfy for 
“‘ the imperfections of our obedience, and has made way 
“that our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead 
*“ of perfect : wherein they seem insensibly to run them- 
‘‘ selves into. the grossest inconsistence. For (as I have 
‘ observed elsewhere) they hold, that God, in mercy to 
** mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution or law 
‘* that they were under originally ; and, instead of it, has 
*€ introduced a more mild constitution, and put us under a 
‘“ new law, which requires no more than imperfect sincere 
** obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impo- 
‘« tent circumstances since the fall. Now, how can these 
‘“* things be made consistent ? ] would ask, what law these 
‘‘ imperfections of our obedience are a breach of ? If they 
“aré a breach of no law that we were ever under, then 
‘* they are not sins. And if they be not sins, what need of 
““« Christ’s dying to satisfy for them 2? But if they are sins, 
‘and the breach of some law, what law is it? They can- - 
‘«not be a breach of their new law ; for that requires no 
‘‘other than imperfect obedience, or Obedience with im- 
‘“ perfections, and, therefore, to have obedience attended 


ORE tr SUR WR era 


“Christ not raised. It appears to me that the Apostle’s view of the 
** subject was simply this: that as God, who isimmutable in his designs, 
“ pave man a personal existence through Jesus Christ, and as that e@x- 
*€ istence is necessarily accompanied with privations which subject him 
‘to temporal death, so as a counterbalance to this, God, according to 
‘* his goodness and justice, immutably purposed that all men should be 
“ raised from the dead through Christ.”— And again, (p. 13,) *“ As 
“ Christ died to give us a personal existence (accompanied with many 
** privations, in consequence of the fall,) he has made ample provision 
“for every one, whereby these things are counterbalanced.”——Thus, 
the benefits of redemption, through Jesus Christ, are represented as a 
compensation for the privations we suffer—innocently suffer—in con- 
sequence of the fall! Thus, the offended Sovereign of heaven and 
earth is represented, in the work of our redemption, as giving compen- 
sation for damages, and paying a debt of justice, to his rebel offspring, 
rather than displaying the infinite riches of his grace and mercy ! 


16 


ss 


182 


* 
‘“¢ with imperfections is no breach of it; for it is as muck 
“as it requires. And they cannot be a breach of their 
‘«‘ old law; for that, they say, is entirely-abolished ; and 
<¢ we never were under it. ‘They say, it would not be just 
“in God to require of us perfect obedience, because it 
«« would not be just to require more than we can per- 
«<form, or to punish us for failing of it. And, therefore, 
‘« by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedi- 
‘< ence do not deserve to be punished. What need, there- 
‘< fore, of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them ? What need 
«: of his suffering, to satisfy for that which is no fault ; and, 
‘< in its own nature, deserves no suffering ? What need of 
‘‘ Christ dying to purchase, that our imperfect obedience 
_ ** should be accepted, when, according to their scheme, it 


4 would be unjust in itself, that any other obedience, than 


‘«< imperfect, should be required 2 What need of Christ’s 
«: dying to make way for God’s accepting such an obedi- 


«ence, as it would be unjust in him not to accept? Is ~ 


«« there any need of Christ’s dying to prevail with God not 
“¢ to do unrighteously ? If it be said, that Christ died to 
«< gatisfy that old law for us, that so we might not be under 
.< it, but that there might be room for our being under a 
«¢ more mild law; still I would inquire, what need of 
“¢ Christ’s dying, that we might not be under a law, which 
«* (by their principles) it would be in itself unjust that we 
«¢ should be under, whether Christ had died or no, because, 
‘¢ in-our present state, we are not able to keep it ?”’ ‘Thus 


it appears that Arminian principles make void the grace of — 
God, supersede the atonement, and lead to Arianism or — 


Socinianism. 


Doctor Millar, of Armagh, endeavours to retort the — 


charge—he endeavours to convince his readers, that it is 
not the Arminian, but the Calvinistic system, that has thi 


Sy 


tendency. In his Doctrines of Christianity, (p. 130,) he — 


writes thus: ‘¢It was not unnatural, that when the zeal otm 
« Calvinistical Protestants was no longer sustained by 


“¢ opposition, they should themselves recoil from the gloomy 


«© and terrible doctrine of the arbitrary decrees of God. 


~ 


‘¢ Since Calvin, who seems to have been strongly actuated — 


‘« by the spirit of a leader of a sect, could yet acknowledge 
«< chat the doctrine which he taught, was a horrible decree, 


‘¢ it may well be supposed that, in a later period, when the 


‘«« geal of his followers had been gradually moderated by — 


 4ime and tranquillity, this doctrine should give offence to” 


183 


“« the reason of reflecting men, and dispose them to indulge 
«* themselves without any restraint in qualifying the articles 
“ of their faith, that they might form for themselves what 
‘* they. would denominate a rational religion. Nor was the 
“ peculiar doctrine of Calvin free from a direct tendency 
“* to generate this corruption of the genuine principles of 
‘« the Christian faith. When human salvation was referred 
“to. the arbitrary and irrespective decrees of God, the 
“second person of the Trinity was easily conceived to be 
“* degraded from the rank of a primary agent in the work 
‘“ ofredemption to that of a mere instrument in the execu- 
‘« tion of a preordained arrangement. Those who em- 
‘braced this doctrine were accordingly disposed by it to 
‘* attach less importance to the agency of the Son of God ; 
‘* and the transition was natural from a degraded opinion of 
+ his agency to a degraded estimate of bis nature and cha- 
““racter.”’ | | eon 
Now, surely, no charge was ever more groundless than 
this.. What! Must the Redeemer’s character be conceived 
to be degraded, because he acted on a preconcerted plan ? 
Ow unreasonable the conception! To act without a pre- 
vious plan would be degrading to the meanest mechanic. 
Nor is it at all true, that those who believe in a preordained 
arrangement are disposed to attach less importance to the 
agency of the Son of God. The reverse is the fact. They 
attach to his agency immensely more importance. Armi- 
nians maintain that the guilt which Jesus Christ expiated 
by his blood was only Jinite, Calvinists almost universally 
maintain that it was infinite. As we therefore conceive, 
that the Redeemer has performed an infinitely greater work, 
we attach infinitely greater importance to his agency. It is 
the Arminian, therefore, that entertains a degraded opinion 
of the agency of the Redeemer ;* and Dr. Millar assures 


SMe es coca y seuss ee ca a ee ht me Oa APC RNIN x 


* That Antitrinitarianism tends to degrade the merits of the Re- 
deemer, and to. exalt human merit, is evident from their Writings. 
“ And if God constituted the first man a federal head,” says Mr. 
M‘Afee, “ and had he continued faithful, I see no reason why his . 
* whole posterity, who would have been saved eternally by the imputa- 
** tation of his righteousness, might not have sung, glory, honour, and 
** blessing, be ascribed to our father Adam for ever and ever.” An 
Arminian sees no reason why praises should not have been sung to 
father Adam; but a Calvinist sees every reason in the world. The 
Calvinist believes, that had father Adam continued to obey, not only 
the commandment relative to the forbidden fruit, but all the command- 


wi. 


mee 


184 
us, that “ the transition is natural from a degraded opinion 
‘“‘ of his agency to a degraded estimate of his character.” 
The Arminian system, then, and not the Calvinistic, 
tends to Arianism, as the extract from Edwards fully 
proves. : 

The Doctor, however, persists in his attempt to substan- 
tiate his charge. He endeavours to prove it by facts. P. 
224, he writes thus; ‘If, to remove this uncertainty the 
‘“* Synod (of Ulster) should be induced to recur to their 
“ancient confession of faith, they would return to that, 
‘* which, as has already been exemplified in every instance, 
‘‘ has naturally tended to pass into that very Arianism or 


ments of God ; not only for a few years, but for thousands of ages, he 


would have merited—just nothing at all. When he had done all he 


could, he would have been only an unprofitable servant—he would 
have only done what it was his duty todo. Were some Nobleman to 
present a large estate to Mr. M‘Afee and his posterity for ever, on this 
simple condition, that Mr. M‘Afee should return to the donor one — 
barley-corn, would the fulfilment of this condition be so meritorious, as 
to entitle Mr. M‘Afee to the praises of his posterity through all genera- 
tions 2 How absurd the idea! And yet, there is an infinitely greater 
proportion between a barley-corn and the fee simple of a large estate, 
than between the obedience of Adam and the eternal happiness of the 
whole human family. In the former case, according to Calvinistic 
ideas, the praises would be due, not to Mr. M‘Afee, but to his kind 
benefactor ; and in the latter—not to father Adam, but to our Father 
in Heaven. Calvinists believe, that the obedience, notonly of Adam, 
but of all his posterity—nay, that the united obedience of all the men 
on earth, and all the angels in heaven, can merit nothing ; and at the - 
same time they believe, that every act of the Redeemer’s obedience 
was infinitely meritorious. Had Adam continued in obedience, and, 
in consequence of his perseverance, had the whole human family been 
confirmed in a state of holiness and happiness, his posterity, according 
to Calvinistic ideas, would have attributed all to the free grace of God, 
they would have felt no temptation to celebrate the praises of father 
Adam. So far from thinking with Mr. M‘Afee, that the obedience of 
Adam would have been more meritorious than that of the Redeemer! — 


—they would have regarded his obedience as having no mertt at all, 


Mr. M‘Afee labours hard to prove, that the human family would have ~ 
enjoyed much greater happiness had they never fallen, than is to be en- 
joyed through the mediation of Jesus Christ—he degrades the work of 
redemption, and merits of the Redeemer, by sinking them into compa- 
rative insignificance. Calvinists, on the contrary, entertain a low opi- 


nion of human merit; buthigh and exalted ideas ofthe merits of their 


Redeemer, and of the benefits of redemption—they believe, that im- 
mensely more glory will redound to God, and happiness to his crea- — 
tures, through the mediation of Jesus Christ, than would have accrued — 
from’a permanent state of unsinning obedience.—The reader may now 
judge whether it is the Calvinistic or Arminian system, that exhibits 
degrading views of the Redeemer’s agency and character, 


~ 


185 


: / nH eae 
*« Socinianism, from which, in returning to it, they would 


“‘ endeavour to escape. What then would be gained by the 
“‘change? They would have abandoned a system, in which 
“* very various opinions are held at the same time, for ano- 
‘‘ ther, the natural tendency of which has actually shown 
** itself to be an alternate movement between the extremes 
‘“ of Calvinistic trinitarianism, and of Arianism or Socini- 
6 arnsmi? 45s) ; 

In this paragraph the learned Doctor professes to reason 
from facts: Why then does he not adhere to facts? It is 
not a fact, that the confession of faith, or the. Calvinism of 


_ that confession, has in every instance tended to pass into 


Arianism or Socinianism. Has the Westminster Confession 
in the Secession church, tended towards Arianism or Socini- . 
anism? No :—there is not in that church a single Arian 
or Socinian. Has the Westminster Confession, in the Re- 
formed Presbyterian church, tended towards Arianism or 
Socinianism? It has not.—There is not in that church 


_ one single Arian or Socinian. Dr. Millar should be better 


acquainted with facts before he begins to reason from them, - 


He should beware of stating as facts things which are not 


_factsat all. It is a fact honourable to the Westminster 


Confession, that in every instance, in this country, where 
subscription to that formula has been required, it has proved 
a bar to the introductionof Arianism. Another fact equally 
honourable to the Confession is, that Arianism made little 
or no progress in the Synod of Ulster, till that barrier was 
removed—-till subscription to that Confession ceased to be 
required. ep, 

The last fact I shall mention, and one highly honourable 
to the Westminster Confession, is, that in no country in the 
world do “ Sound doctrine and. the power of godliness’’ 
more prevail, than in that couniry where Presbyterianism 
and Calvinism, as taught in that Confession, are the estab- 
lished religion of the state. What country on the face of 
this globe can bear a comparison with Scotland, either for 
orthodoxy or morality? So much for the charge of Dr.’ 
Millar, That the Calvinism of the Westminster Confession 
has a tendency towards Arianism. | What system it is that 
has such a tendency, the reader is now left to judge. — 

oi 16* : 


ae 5 


186 


_ SECTION II. 


- Of Free Agency. 


The whole controversy between Arminians and Calvinists 
originates, I humbly conceive, in a misunderstanding with 
respect to free agency. It is generally imagined, that Cal- — 
vinists deny the free agency of man; but this is a gross 
mistake. The Calvinist, as well as the Arminian, grants, | 
that if man were not free, he could not be accountable. | 
The Calvinist, as well as the Arminian, grants that man is 
a voluntary agent, and, when subject to no external restraint, — 
can. do what he pleases. ‘The Calvinist believes that man, 


_~ by the fall, did not lose his natural freedom. Had he lost 


this freedom, he would have ceased to be an accountable — 
agent. But, though man did not lose his natural freedom 
by the fall, he lost his moral freedom. Heis a slave to sin. 
_—This moral slavery is quite consistent with natural free- 
dom. Ina philosophical sense, he acts as freely now in 
pursuing the paths of vice and folly, as he did before the fall 
in running the ways of God’s commandments. It is true, 
that man, in consequence of the fall, is not able to keep 
the whole law of God; nor is he able of himself to believe 
and repent. Man, by the fall, has lost his ability—not his 
natural, but his moral ability. By the fall, man lost. none 
of his powers and faculties. He has still an understanding, 
will; and affeetion.—These faculties are only perverted, — 
but not destroyed. Man has lost his moral ability: or, in — 
other words, he has lost his inclination to good. Heisnow — 
wholly inclined to evil. The imaginations of the thoughts — 
of his heart are only evil, and that continually. 3, 
Arminians conceive, that indifference is essential to — 
liberty—that to constitute an action virtuous, the mind must _ 
be in a state of equilibrium. Calvinists are of a quite dif- _ 
ferent opinion. They conceive, that the greater a man’s 
bias or propensity towards good, he is the more virtuous; 
and that the greater his bias or propensity towards evil, he — 
is the more vicious. This appears to me to be a dictate — 
both of Scripture and of common sense. The Scriptures — 
represent the debauchee as arrived at the highest degree of — 
wickedness, when his eyes are full of adultery, or rather of © 
the adulteress, and when he cannot cease from sin. In ac- — 
* cordance with this view are the dictates of common sense. 


‘4h 


187 


The common sense even of the Arminian himself, when the 
matter is brought home to his business and his bosom, re- 
bels against his speculative principles. No Arminian in the 
world would prefer a servant whose mind should be in a 
state of equilibrium or indifference with regard to moral 
honesty. In this case, with the Calvinist, he would cer 
tainly prefer that servant whose principles of honesty were 

so confirmed, that he could not deliberate for a moment 
whether he would rob his master ; but would immediately, 
and, as it were instinctively, spurn every idea of dishonesty. 

In a court of judicature, no criminal was ever known to 

plead, in arrest of judgment, his moral inability.—Was any 

-parricide ever known to plead, in extenuation of his crime, 
that his hatred to his father was so great, that he found it 
quite impossible to avoid committing the horrid deed ? 
Such a plea was never set up in arrest of judgment by any 
murderer. On the contrary, malice prepense is that which 
stamps the crime with its characteristic enormity, and dis- 
tinguishes it from manslaughter. If indifference were es- 
sential to liberty and free agency, as Arminians contend, 
holy angels, and the spirits of the just made perfect, could 
neither be virtuous nor free agents. N ay, the Deity himself 

could neither be virtuous nor free! None of these has a 
liberty of indifference, they are all wholly and invariably 
inclined to good. Nor could devils and damned souls be 
virtuous ; for they have no liberty of indifference : they 

are wholly and invariably inclined to evil. 'To such absurd 
conclusions, Arminian ideas of liberty and free agency un- 
avoidably lead.* ; 


erro. ae Ae a — 


Fe a a I PERE SME ae a eee 


* Some. Arminian writers almost admit those conclusions, « The 
“tmoment Adam committed this one act of disobedience,”—says Mr, 
M‘Afee in his Rational and Scriptural Investigation—<“ he entailed on 
“himself a state of debilitation, which laid him under the necessity of 
“ following his corrupt inclinations without any power to resist them.” 
—Again; (p. 19,) he says, ‘ The first act of disobedience, therefore, 
“ rendered Adam as guilty as he ever after could become ; because it 
“ rendered his after actions necessary, and consequently as such they 
“ were incapable of incurring additional guilt.”—* Hence I come to 
“ this conclusion”—says the same writer in the same page—* That 
_ “had Adam lived 930 years after his fall Without any restoration of 
“his lapsed powers, his guilt would have been no greater than it was 
_ “ upon the perpetration of his first sin.” Now, if, in consequence of 
his inability, it was impossible for Adam after the fall to commit sins- 
_ Surely it is equally impossible for the damned in the place of misery.to 

‘commit.sin; for their inability is at least as great ag that of: Adam. 


“ oe (188 
Were the distinction between natural freedom and moral 
freedom, natural ability and moral ability, carefully observ- 
ed, the controversy between Arminians and Calvinists 
would, I humbly conceive, soon terminate. When such 
distinctions are confounded, Calvinism appears an absurd, 


Upon the same principle, it is equally impossible for the devil and his 
angels to commit sin; for their inability, also, isequally great. When 
the célebrated Mr. Wesley first taught, that believers in this life may © 
arrive at such a state of perfection us to live without sin, many were 
‘astonished. But the disciple has far outdone the master. Mr. M‘Afee, 
on Arminian principles, has proved—not that believers can live without 
sin; this would be a emall thing; but he has proved—that Adam after: 
the fall, independent ofa Redeemer, and without the aid of divine grace, 
ar anfluence of the blessed Spirit, could have lived without sin 930 years 
-~-Yes, NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS!! Now, if this ** able 
* antagonist” has succeeded in establishing this conclusion—and cn 
Arminian principles the conclusion is undeniable—with still greater 
force of evidence he may conclude, that the sin of the ‘¢ old Serpent the 
‘* devil and Satan” is no greater now than the moment he fell! Though 
in Scripture, the devil is represented as that *‘ wicked one who sinneth 
* from the beginning, and goeth about as a roaring lion seeking whom 
“ he may devour ;” yet, according to Mr. M‘Afee’s principles, he and 
all his angels are living lives of perfect innocence !—they have lived 
without sin nearly six thousand years !—and will so live to all eternity ! 
On the same principles, the damned in the place of tnisery and wo live 
without sin !—and hell itselfis a place of sinless perfection !!!—Having 
“mentioned sinless perfection, I beg the readei’s indulgence whilst I offer 
a few observations on the doctrine.—The advocates of this opinion 
brand us with infamy, as holding a “death purgatory,” because we ~ 
believe, that no man is totally freed from sin till the moment of death. 
They stigmatize us as Antinomians. Now, in all my life, I never knew 
an instance in which a charge could with more justice and truth be re- 
torted. The advocates of sinless or Christian perfection do not pretend 
that they can live without sin with respect to the old moral law given 
to Adam; but only with respect to a new law, which they call a law 
of liberty. And thus they bring their hearers to a state of perfection, 
not by bringing them up to the law, but by bringing the law down to 
them—not by making them conform to the pure and holy law of God, 
but by making that pure and holy law conform to their obliquities— 
not by making the object measured conform to the rule, but the rule to 
the object measured! By such ingenious management as this, the most 
crooked object in nature might be proved to be straight! Thus it ap- 
pears, that Christian perfection is attained at the expense of bending 
d bringing down the law of God, and lowering the standard yo 
hristian morality. If this is not Antinomianism, I should be glad to 
know what it is, The trite observation, that extremes are nearest 
meeting, is here remarkably verified. The Arminian who cries up 
good works, and the Antinominian who cries them down, meet in this 
point—opposition to the pare and perfect law of God. The very at- 
tempt to lower the standard of morality proves imperfection. If we say 
Wp are perfect, we prove ourselves perverse. 


189 


unreasonable, and horrible system.—We are commanded 
to obey the whole law of God—to believe, repent, &&c.—and 
yet, according to the Calvinistic system, we can no more 
do these things than we can remove mountains. We are 
commanded to do things which we cannot do—things 
which are impossible—and punished for not doing them! 
This is regarded by Arminians as hard, unjust, and cruel. 
And, indeed, it would be so, were the inability natural and 
not moral. Nothing could be more unjust, than to com- 
mand a man to walk without legs, or to fly without wings, 
_ and then punish him for disobedience. But this moral ina- 
bility of man—his inability to believe, repent, and obey—is 
of a quite different nature. It consists not in the want of 
natural powers; but in the want of will and inclination. 
Were a man ever so willing, he could not walk without 
legs, or fly without wings, or remove mountains: these are 
natural mmpossibilities. But ifa man were willing to believe, 
repent, and obey, these duties would be performed. The 
inability? or impossibility, consists in the want of will and 
inclination. Ye will not come to me, says our Saviour, that 
ye may have life. Itis accepted, says the Apostle Paul, 
according to that a man hath, and not according to that he 
hath not, if there be first a willing mind. 

To these observations it may be objected, that the dark- 
ness of the understanding, as well as the obstinacy of the 
will, may be regarded as a cause of unbelief, impenitence 
or disobedience. I grant it. But I humbly conceive, that 
no darkness, blindness, or ignorance is at all criminal, any 
farther than as it is voluntary, or connected with the incli- 
nation or disposition of the heart. This I consider to be 
not only a dictate of common sense, but also of divine re- 
velation, This is the condemnation, that light has come 
into the world, and that men love darkness rather than 
light. It is not men’s darkness, blindness, or ignorance 
that is hemgrepresented as the ground of their condemna- 
tion, but their love of that darkness. Unregenerate men 
love darkness and hate the light, It is because men receive 
not the love of the truth—not the truth, but the love of 
the truth—that God gives them over to strong delusion, to 
believe lies, that all maybe damned who believe not the 
truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. Thus it ap- 
‘pears, that the inability of fallen man is a moral inability, 
consisting, not in the want of natural powers, but rather in 
the want of will and inclination. Such inability is pers 


190 


fectly consistent with natural freedom, and is no excuse for 
disobedience, unbelief, or impenitence. Every person who 
thinks at all, must at once see, that disinclination to what is 
right, can never be an apology for what is wrong. ~Disin- 
clination to obedience can never be an apology for disobe- 
dience. If disinclination to virtue were an apology for 
vice, the greater the’ aversion or disinclination, the better 
the apology ; which is evidently absurd. That mability, 
which consists in a man’s want of will and inclination to 
do his duty,'is so far from being an excuse, that it is the 
very thing in which his criminality consists. ‘The greater 
a man’s natural inability to do his duty, he is the more ez- 
cusable ; the greater his moral inability, he is the more in- 
excusable—the more guilty. ‘The greater a man’s propen- 
sity to vice, the greater is his inability. to practise virtue. 
If such inability were an excuse, then the greater the ina- 
bility the better the excuse. On this principle, it would be 
wise to confirm the habits of vice and immorality. On this 
principle, the more wicked any person is, he is the more 
tnnocent ! .'The more wicked he is, heis the less able to do 
his duty; and the less able to do his duty, he is the less 
guilty for neglecting it: of course; when he is'so despe 
_tately wicked, so completely depraved, that he is totally un- 
able to do his duty, then he has no guilt at all; but is com- 
pletely innocent! Such is ‘the monstrous conclusion, ‘to 
which we must necessarily come, if we deny that moral 
alavery is consistent with natural freédom—or if we deny 
that there is any distinction between natural and moral ina- 


bility—or if we deny that moral inability is inconsistent __ 


with guilt or blame. Inattention to the distinction between 
natural and moral inability, natural and moral necessity, 
natural and moral impossibility, é&c. has been the cause of 
interminable disputes, and inextricable confusion. The 
distinction has in general been but ill understood. It has 
been a thousand times confounded both by Calfinists and 
Arminians. Whenever a Calvinist confounds the distinc- 
tion, he betrays his cause ; and often has the cause been so 
betrayed. ‘Arminians constantly confound the distinction. 
{ have never yet met with any plausible Arminian reasoning; 
but what proceeded on the principle, that there is no dis- 
t¢nction between natural and moral inability, necessity, &c. 
Were the principle on which Arminians proceed correet— 
were there no distinction between natural and moral inabi- 
lity, &c.—I would: have no hesitation in saying, that their 


i91 


reasonings are completely conclusive, and that I myself 
would become an Arminian immediately. But I am not 
more convinced of my own existence, than I am that the 
distinction is well founded; and, of course, that the Ap 
minian reasonings are altogether inconclusive and sophis 
tical. They may be resolved into that species of sophism 
which logicians denominate ignorantia elenchi, or a mie 
take of the question. Even Doctor Reid himself, (one of 
the most eminent moral philosophers,) falls into this so- 
phism. He supposes a sailor to maim himself, in order to 
be exempted from duty—and that his captain commands 
him, thus maimed, to climb the shrouds, and punishes him 
for disobedience. The Dr. conceives that this would be great 
cruelty ; and so it would. But between this case and that 
of fallen man there is no analogy. The one is natural, 
the other is moral. The sailor’ could not obey, were he 
ever so willing : not so with fallen man. His inability con- 
sists in the want of will and inclination. Let us suppose 
another sailor, who has the use of all his limbs, but is, at 
the same time, of such a malignant disposition and stub- 
born temper, and has conceived such an implacable hatred 
towards his captain, and unconquerable aversion to his 
duty, that. he cannot obey. This sailor, as well as the for 
mer, may be unable to climb the shrouds. But, surely, 
theircases are very different. The former might be justly 
blaimed for maiming himself, but, after he was maimed, 
he could not be blamed for not using those limbs which he 
did not possess. To command, invite, and exhort him to 
do his duty, and punish him for not doing it, would be the 
greatest injustice and cruelty.. But there would be no in- 
justice, nor yet cruelty, in commanding, inviting, and ex- 
horting the latter sailor, whose inability to obey arose, not — 
from the want of physical strength, but from stubbornness 
and obstinacy—not from any deficiency in his limbs, but 
from enmity and aversion. The case of this latter sailor, 
and not of the former, represents the situation of fallen 
man. His inability is moral, and not physical. Were hrs 
inability physical, it would be altogether unjust and cruel 
fo command, invite, or entreat him, and then to punish 
him for unbelief or disobedience. But his inability is mo- 
ral, and, therefore, there is no injustice or cruelty at all. 
Were man’s inability natural; God would be obliged to re- 
‘Move that inability before he could justly issue any com- 
mands. On this supposition, Arminian ideas would be per- 


192 


fectly correct. But the inability is moral, and God is not 
obliged to remove this oa of inability before he issues 
his commands. 

That God is obliged. to remove man’s moral inability, and 
to give him grace, which if he improve he shall be saved, 
seems to me to be the GREAT FUNDAMENTAL ERROR of the 
Arminian system. It is this radical mistake, I humbly con- 
ceive, which leads Arminians into all their other errors. 
That I am fully justified in thinking so, will appear from the 
following Aspe of the learned Divinity Professor, Doctor 
Graves: (p. xiv.) «But it seems to me, that to prove 
** God vouchsafes divine grace to all to whom is promui- 
‘¢ gated his revealed will, it is sufficient to show, that in such 
“ Revelation he commands an obedience requiring such 
‘* divine assistance, for it is inconsistent with all he teaches 
‘* us of his attributes, to suppose that he would command 
‘* what could not be performed, or rather withhold the 
‘¢ means of performing what he commands. Nor can I 
‘* agree to the doctrine that would impute to that Deity 
‘‘ who punished Pharaoh for demanding the same tale of 
‘‘ bricks while he withheld the straw, a system of moral 
‘* government which would be equally inconsistent with his 
«¢ mercy and justice. Whenever this revealed will then is 
“ promulgated, I would assert, that this power is commu- 
‘* nicated in different degrees indeed, as God sees fit to deal 
‘¢ out the measure of his grace; but to all, what if used 
“‘ would lead to further grace and ultimate salvation,* and 
‘if neglected shall rise up in witness, and condemn the 
‘“ despisers of God’s holy will.” —(See also, p. 211.) 
In this quotation, the Doctor concludes, that because God 
gives commands which cannot be obeyed without grace and 
assistance, he therefore gives grace and assistance to all to 


* Tf, as Arminians contend, there is so much grace given to all, that 
if they improve it they shall be saved, I ask, how much UD PIV eneRE is 
necessary to secure salvation ? What endeavours are necessary? If 
aman use half the endeavours in his power, will this be sufficient—will 
one-third do? or must he use two-thirds? Where must the line be drawn? 
It must be somewhere. Suppose at one half. The man, therefore,who uses 
half the endeavours in his power, obtains grace, and is saved; but he 
who does not come up to this line, though within a hair-breadth ‘of it, is 
condemned. One man goesto eternal happiness, and the other to eter« 
nal misery, and yet there was only a hair-breadth’s difference in point 
of exertion or improvement! Let Decay Graves solve this difficulty, 
— See Edwards's Remarks. 


7 


193 


whom those commands are addressed. Now, here lies the 

grand error. If our inability to obey were natural, the 
Doctor would be right ; but it is moral, and therefore he is 
mistaken. God commands us to believe, to repent, and to 

love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, 

and mind, and our neighbour as ourselves. These com- 

mands, without divine assistance, we can no more obey 

than we can remove. mountains. But our inability is no 

excuse: it is the very thing in which our criminality con- 

sists. Our inability is great. No power less than omnipo- 

tent can remove it. But all this proves the greatness of 
our criminality—the enormity of our guilt. Our inability 

is great, because our pride is great, our hatred is implaca- 

ble, our enmity irreconcilable, Would any rational being 
venture to apologize for his unbelief, disobedience, and im- 
penitence, thus: I hate my God: my mind is filled with 
enmity against him ; and therefore I cannot be justly com- 
manded to love him !—I hate my Redeemer : I see no form 
nor comeliness in him—no beauty why I should admire 
him ; and therefore I cannot be justly commanded to be- 
lieve in him!—I would rather die in my sins than accept . 
of salvation through his blood! I must therefore be ex- 
cused, though, by my unbelief, I make God a liar, trample 
under foot the blood of my Redeemer, and do despite to 
the spirit of grace, who stands knocking at the door of my 
heart! My enmity is so great, I cannot help it !—J hate 
the pure and holy law of my God: my mind is full of en- 
mity against it: I cannot, therefore, be justly commanded 
to obey it !—I must be excused, though I trample it under 
my feet !—TI love my sins: I roll them as a sweet morsel 
under my tongue ; and therefore I cannot repent of them 
nor turn from them: I would rather die in them, and be 
eternally punished for them! In short; my pride and my 
hatred are so great, that I can neither love God, nor his 
law, nor his Son !—My enmity is so great, that [can neither 
believe, repent, nor obey ; and therefore faith, repentance, 
and obedience, cannot be justly required, unless God grant 
his grace and assistance !—Would any of the sons of apos- 
tate Adam dare thus to apologize for their unbelief, impe- 
hitence, or disobedience ? Have such monsters of wicked- 

ness any claims on divine grace or assistance? Is it not a 
‘Miracle of mercy, that God does not pour on such miscre- 
ants the cataracts of his wrath, and consign them to eters - 
nal separation from his presence—* unrespited, unpitied, 
hie 17 


194 


‘‘unreprieved ?’ Is.itnot a miracle of mercy, that instead 
of making bare his red right arm, and hurling against such 
rebels the thunderbolts of his vengeance, he has sent his 
Son to save them—to die for them? Herein js love, not 
that we loved God, but ‘that he first loved us. While we 
were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of 
his Son... baal iain ake 
The Arminians are guilty of two grand mistakes: 1, In 
supposing, that God was in justice obliged to provide a 
remedy, and to put salvation in the power of such rebels. 
2, In supposing, that his perfections oblige him to remove 
our moral inability, and to make us willing to accept of that ~ 
remedy. We maintain, that the Deity is under no such 
obligations. What! when God’s own children, whom he 
has nourished and brought up—to whom he has given, life, 
and breath, and all things—when these unnatural children _ 
turn round on their heavenly Father, and, with hearts filled 
with enmity, lift hostile arms, and wage impious war, 
against him who is the author of their existence, the length 
of their days, and the source of all their enjoyments—in- 
stead of crushing such rebels under his feet, or dashing 
them to pieces like a potter’s vessel, is the insulted governor 
of the universe obliged to put into their power the means 
of salvation? Surely not. When they had so basely for- 
feited his favour, he was under no obligation to make pro- 
vision for their happiness. Or, if any will be so unreason- 
able as to affirm, that his perfections obliged him to make 
such provision, they will be forced to admit, as we have 
already shown, that there is no grace in such provision— 
that it is purely a debt. Sik 
Again ; if God was not obliged to make provision for- 
the recovery of his rebel offspring—if he was not obliged 
to provide a cure, much less was he obliged to make them 
willing to accept of that cure—if he was not obliged to of- 
fer them a reprieve, much less was he obliged to make them 
willing to accept of that reprieve—if he was not obliged to 
loosen their chains, and open their prison doors, much less 
was he obliged to make them willing to walk forth to liberty 
and life. Can God not command us to accept of that re- 
medy which he has provided at infinite expense ?—can he 
not command us to accept of a reprieve ? and when our 
chains are loosened, and our prison doors’ thrown wide open, — 
can he not command us to walk forth to liberty and life ?— 
can he-not issue these infinitely gracious commands till he 


195 


has previously given us will and inclination to obey. them? 
—Surely nothing can be more absurd or unreasonable than’ 
such, a supposition, Should Arminians reply, We do not 
say that God is obliged to give us will and inclination—I 
ask, What then do you mean. by power to obey the com- 
mands of God? If you mean natural power or natural 
Saculties, we have no, dispute with you.on this subject : but 
if you mean moral power, that is nothing else than will and 
‘inclination. The supposition that God is obliged to vouch- 
safe his assisting grace to enable men to obey his com- 
mands, is, in every view of the subject, absurd. For, if God 
is. obliged to vouchsafe his grace, that grace vouchsafed is 
no longer grace, it isa debt. . That which God in justice 
is bound to give,is not grace. Dr. Graves, and other Ar- 
minian writers, talk absurdly, and are guilty of a gross abuse 
of language, when they call by the name of grace, that as- 
sistance which they allege God is bound to give in order to 
“enable us to obey his precepts.—They should either give 
up their system, or, at least, they should call things by their 
proper names. From their vocabulary the word grace 
should be entirely expunged. Itis a gross misnomer. 
Both Arminians and Calvinists agree in this, that man, 
in his natural state, without divine assistance, is utterly 
unable to believe, repent, and Obey. This inability, as we 
have already seen, arises from, or rather consists in, our 
moral depravity. This depravity is universal. There is 
none that doeth good; no, not one. It is total. All the 
faculties of the soul are depraved—the understanding—the 
will—the affections—the imagination—the conscience—the 
heart. Men in their natural state (Eph. iv. 18,) have their 
** understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of 
‘“* God through the ignorance that is in them, because of 
‘* the blindness of their heart.”>—Their will and affections 
are carnal, and filled with enmity. (Rom. viii. 7,) “ The 
‘carnal mind is enmity against God : it is not subject to 
‘« his law, neither indeed can be.”—-Men in their natural 
state are ‘* haters of God, and live hateful, and hating one 
“‘ another.”” ‘* Madness is in their heart.” It is.“ deceit- 
* ful above all things, and desperately wicked.” ‘ Ever 
“ imagination is only evil continually.’? The state of fallen 
man involves in it two things, guilt and depravity. Guilt 
is removed by the atoning blood of Jesus, as we have - 
already seen ; and depravity is removed by the renovating 


and sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost. Dr. B. main- 


196 


tains, that baptism is regeneration.* T’o expect any sub- 
sequent regeneration, he stigmatises as rank enthusiasm. 
He is not the-first master in Israel who knew not these 
things,’and needed to be taught the first principles of the 
joracles of God. Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, was also 
gnorant of this great important doctrine. Our Saviour as- 
sures him, that he needed not only baptism by water, but 
regeneration bv the power of the Holy Ghost. Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and 
of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Baptism 
with water was the sign ; but regeneration, or the new birth, 
was the thing signified. Water is the great regenerating 
agent in the natural world ; the holy spirit in the moral 
world. The one is a fit emblem of the other. The vege- 
table world during the winter is in a state of decay. By the 
‘vernal showers it is regenerated, and the decayed face of 
the earth renewed.—In like manner, by the blessed spirit 
of all grace the souls of men are renewed, and the moral world 
regenerated. (Is. xliv. 3, 4,) «* For I will pour water upon 
‘** him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I 
‘¢ will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon » 
‘* thine offspring : And they shall spring up as among the 
‘¢ grass, as willows by the water courses.’’—Old and New 
Testaments unite in teaching the same blessed doctrine. 
(Titus, iii. 5,) “« Not by works of righteousness which we 
** have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by 
‘¢ the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
‘* Ghost.’? We may as well expect the renovating of the 
vegetable world without water, as the regeneration of the 
moral without the all-powerful influence of the Divine Spirit. 
The same divine influence which created the world and 
‘raised the dead, is necessary to the restoration of our fallen 
nature, and regeneration of our perverted faculties. To 
illuminate our darkened understanding, requires the influ- 
ence of that omnipotent agent, who said, ‘« Let there be - 
‘light, and there was light.” It is the same Almighty 
Being that commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 


~ 


* Dr. Mant, now Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, in his Bampton 
Lectures, and the Bishop of Lincoln, in his Refutation of Calvinism, 
advocate the same dangerous and uncharitable doctrine. For a refu-. 
tation of it, the reader may consult the work of an eminent Divine of 
the Church of England,—Scot?’s Remarks on the Refutation of Calvin- 
G8» 


; 197 ee 


who shines in our hearts to give us the light of the know- 
ledge of the glory of God, in the face of his son Jesus 
‘Christ. Some imagine, that as light expels darkness, so all 
that is necessary to expel the darkness of our minds is the 
light of the divine word. This, however, is a gross fallacy. 
Light, indeed, introduced into a dark room will banish the 
darkness ; but it will not give light to a man born blind. 
With regard to such a man, it is not only necessary that he 
should be introduced to the light, but, in order that he may 
profit by it, the cataract must be couched ; his eyes must 
be opened. Just so with the natural man.—He requires 
not only an external revelation, but an internal illumination. 
Hence the judicious prayer of David, «Open thou mine 
“* eyes, that [may behold wonderful things out of thy law.” 
Were Dr. B. to offer the same prayer, it might not be un- 
profitable.—By divine illumination he might be brought to 
see in the sacred volume many wonderful things which he 
has never yet seen ; particularly the necessity of the new 
birth—the necessity of a regeneration quite different from 
water baptism. lh 
- The omnipotent power of the blessed spirit is not only 
necessary to open the darkened understanding, but also to 
bend the stubborn will. We have already seen, that men 
are naturally unwilling to come to the Redeemer that they 
may have life ; and that the carnal mind is enmity against 
God: but God sends forth the rod of his strength out of 
Zion, and makes his people willing in the day of his power. 
(Psal. cx. 3.)—By the powerful energy of the blessed spirit, 
he destroys the enmity of the carnal mind, and sheds abroad 
divine love in the heart-—In a word ; man by nature is spi- 
ritually dead—dead in trespasses and sins. "To raise him 
from his spiritual-death, and enable him to walk with Jesus 
in newness of life, requires an exertion of divine power 
, equal to that which raises the dead. To enable an unre- 
generated man to believe, requires not only the power of 
God, but the exceeding greatness of his power. (Eph. i. 
19,) “ And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to 
“us-ward who believe, according to the working of his 
_ “mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised 
* him from the dead.” °The same’ Apostle prays for the 
Thessalonians, “ That God would fulfil all the good plea- 
“-sure.of his will, and the work of faith with power.” Itis- 
the powerful agency of that same spirit which entered into _ 
Ezekiel’s dried bones, that quickens dead sinnerseethat 
HY de 


2 


198 


begins the good work of grace, and carries it on to perfec- 
tion till the day of Christ Jesus. It is the law of the spirit 
of life in Christ Jesus that makes us free from the law of 
sin and death. By his blessed agency, sinners are created 
anew in Christ Jesus unto good works—they are renewed 
in the spirit of their minds—old things pass away, and all 
things become new. My readers are now left to judge, 
what kind of a system that must be, which does not embrace, 
but rather excludes, the regenerating and sanctifying influ- 
ences of the Holy Ghost. , ' 
Should any person ask, Is it the duty of fallen man to re- 
generate himseif? I answer, It is. Many, I know, will 
be astonished at this answer. They will be ready to ex- 
claim; What! The duty of fallen man to regenerate him- 
self! What monstrous absurdity! Might he not, with as 
much reason, be required to create himself? or to raise 
himself from the dead ?’—By no means: though the im- 
possibility in the one case is as great as that in the other, it 
is of a quite different nature ; and therefore the greatness 
of the impossibility does not affect the obligation of the duty, 
nor render the requirement of it unreasonable. ‘That it is 
the duty of fallen man to regenerate himself, cannot reason- 
ably be doubted by any who believe the Bible to be the 
word of God. In the sacred volume, we are expressly en- 
joined to regenerate ourselves. (Ezekiel, xviii. 31,) <‘ Make 


_* you a new heart, and a new spirit.”” Now, if regenera- 


tion, or the making of a new heart and a new spirit, were 
not a duty, it would not be enjoined. The righteous gov- 
ernor of the universe cannot possibly issue any command, 
which it is not our duty to obey. His commandments are 
not grievous: they are all holy, just, and good. Would it 
be unjust or cruel ina husband to address his unfaithful 
spouse thus: Break off your adulterous connexions, and 
become a new woman. Be a faithful, loving, and obedient 
wife. Beno longer ‘for another man, and so will I also 
be for thee.’’—Would such an address be unreasonable or 
cruel 2? Surely not. Such an abandoned female might in- 
deed find it as great an impossibility to become a new woman 
—to become a faithful, loving, and obedient wife—as to — 
create herself out of nothing, or to raise herself from the _ 
dead. But surely every person must see, that such impos- 


sibility, arising from dissipation and depravity, could not 


possibly be any excuse—it could not possibly relax her ob- 
ligations to duty and obedience.) ©) 00 Roms 


199 


Task again: Would it be unjust or cruel in a father to 
address his prodigal son thus: Leave off your courses of 
dissipation and prodigality. Become a new man. Behave 
as a dutiful and obedient son, and you shall be heir of all 
my possessions ?—Would such requisitions be unjust or 
cruel? Surely not. And yet the son might be such an 
abandoned and dissipated character, that he could no more * 
obey his father’s injunctions, than he could. raise the dead 
or create a new world. Why then may not God, our hea- 
venly Father, address us, his prodigal and rebellious off- 
spring in similar language ? Why may he not say unto us, 
“Repent and turn yourselves from your transgressions ; so 
“iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all 
*“ your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed ; and 
‘make you a new heart, and a new spirit ; for why will ye 
‘die?’ When enjoined to make a new heart and new 
spirit, all that is required is, to love the Lord our God with 
all our heart, soul, strength and mind, and our neighbour as 
ourselves. Is it unreasonable, I ask, for God to require of 
us to love himself, and to love one another? Surely no- 
thing can be more reasonable. It is true, I acknowledge, 
that in our present depraved state we can no more comply 
with those reasonable requisitions, than we could create 
ourselves out of nothing, or raise the dead. But such in- 
ability proves what ?—It fully proves, that we are mon- 
STROUSLY -DEPRAVED, DESPERATELY WICKED, AND QUITE 
INEXCUSABLE. , ; 

With regard to the unfaithful wife and prodigal son men- 
tioned above, would any one say, that the husband, after 
making the gracious proposals previously stated, was oblig- 
ed, moreover, to change his wife’s depraved and dissipated 
mind ?—that he was obliged to change her hatred and dis- 
affection into love ?—or that the father was obliged to era- 
dicate his son’s vicious habits and corrupt propensities, and 
to infuse into his mind filial piety and virtuous affections ? 
Surely this would be:highly unreasonable. But perhaps it 
may be said, the cases are not parallel. The husband was 
not able to change the dispositions of his wife, nor the” 
father of his son, but God is able to change the dispositions 
of all his children. I grant it. But because he is able, ig 
he therefore bound to do it? Surely not. He is able ina 
Moment to eradicate: every vestige of wickedness out of the 
minds both of men and devils, but he is not therefore bound 
to do it. He is neither bound to prevent men from sinning, 


* 


~ 


200 


nor, after they have sinned, is he under the smallest obliga- 
tion to eradicate their depravity, and restore them again to 
a state of holiness and bliss.. If he were bound to do these 
things, the operation, as I stated before, would not be grace, 
but debt. oan bh 

The learned professor of Divinity in Trinity College, and 
Arminians in general, maintain, that God has conditionally 
bound himself to give a new heart, faith, repentance, and 
other graces. They allege, that he has engaged to give 
these things to all who sincerely seek them. He has pro- 
ee they tell us, to give his holy spirit to them that ask 

im. | é 

In all this there is a complete fallacy. Arminians here 
are altogether mistaken. In the whole sacred.volume there 
is not a single promise made to the prayers or endeavours 
of unregenerate men. In the prayers and endeavours of 
unregenerate men there is nothing of the nature of true 
virtue—nothing that is well pleasing in the sight of God. 
Their prayers and other endeavours cannot be acceptable, 
because they do not proceed from faith; for without faith 
it is impossible to please God—they cannot be acceptable, 
because they do not proceed from dove. Nothing can be 
acceptable that proceeds from a mind filled with enmity. 
If we give all our goods to feed the poor, and have not 
charity, (love) it will profit usnothing. Finally, unregene- 
rate men have no regard to the divine glory, and therefore 
their prayers and other endeavours are altogether unaccept- 
able. Whether we eat, or drink, or whatever we do, all 
should be done to the glory of God. | Arminians talk ab- 
surdly when they talk of the sincere prayers and endea- 
vours of unregenerate men. In an unrenewed heart—in a 
heart filled with pride, enmity, and unbelief, there can be. 
no true sincerity—no godly sincerity. There may be a 
sincere desire to avoid misery, or a sincere desire to be 
happy. ‘The Devil himself has this sincerity. But there 
is no.sincere love to God—ano sincere love to his law—no 
sincere love to holiness. In aword; an unregenerate man 
has no sincerity which is truly virtuous, and, on this ac- 
count, well pleasing in the sight of God. God has not 
promised his spirit,.as Arminians suppose, in answer to the 
prayers of unregenerate men. ‘It is true he has promised 
his holy spirit to them that ask him: but how must they 
ask? ods it not in faith? And:does:notfaith presuppose 


201 


regeneration ?—and does not regeneration presuppose a 
previous influence of the Holy Ghost ? <a 
_ When our Saviour says, Ask and ye shall receive, and as- 
‘ sures us that every one that asks receives, &c. he only in- 
tends that species of asking, seeking, and knocking, which 
is accompanied with faith. (Matt. xxi. 22,) «« All things 

‘‘ whatsoever ye shall askin prayer, believing, ye shall 
«¢receive.”” The Apostle James teaches the same doctrine. 
(James i. 5, 6,) “If any of you lack wisdom, let him 
*¢ ask of God—but let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.” 
That the promises of the Gospel are not made to every. 
species of asking, seeking, and knocking, is evident, not 
only from the above cited texts, but the spirit of God posi- 
tively declares, with regard to certain characters who are 
not believers, (Prov. i. 28,) «Then shall they call, but I 
** will not answer: they shall seek me early, but shall not 
“find me.” It is only the prayer of faith that God has 
promised to hear: and faith, the Apostle assures us, is 
* not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.’’* 

_ Dr. Graves fully admits, (p. 273,) that we cannot pray 
acceptably till God previously pour upon us a spirit of grace 
and supplication: and thus we are furnished with a strik- 
ing example of that species of sophism, which logicians 
denominate “reasoning in a circle,” or the “ circulating 
—£¢ syllogism.”’ Ask Doctor Graves how we are to obtain 
faith ; he will say, By prayer. Ask him again, How can 
we pray acceptably ? he will reply, By faith. That is to 
say, acceptable prayer precedes faith, and yet faith pre- 
cedes acceptable prayer! Such is the contradiction in 
gpich the Arminian system involves one of its most Jearn- 
@€dadvocates! Ci . 

_Itis therefore abundantly evident, that when a man be- 
lieves and repents, God is the first mover. It is God that 


‘3. Z F % 


U 


_™ Arminians endeavour to evade the force of this text by a gram- 
matical criticism. They say, it cannot be faith that is the gift of God; 
for the relative rovro, being in the neuter gender, cannot agree with 
wiscis, which is feminine. Now, if this criticism be admitted to be just, 
upon the-yery same principle, Arminians might contend, that in Phil. 
i. 28, salvation is not said to be of God; for tTovro, in the neuter gen- 
der can no more agree with the antecedent ziscws in the one case, 
than with vez) in the other. The truth is, that in these cases, and 
others that might be adduced, the neuter relatives do not refer immedi- 
ately to the feminine nouns that precede them, but to the word ToTHeIAS 
understood, one 


202 


has made that man to differ from his unbelieving and impe- 
mitent neighbours. The Arminian says, No. The man 
himself was the. first mover. By his earnest. prayers he 
moved God to grant him faith and repentance: But, let 
me ask the Arminian, who poured upon him this spirit of 
grace and supplication? who enabled him to pray so fer- 
vently ? Surely it was God. The Deity then was still the 
first mover, and still it was God that made him: to differ. 
Dr. Graves maintains, that all the divine promise and dis- 
pensations are conditional. I grant, indeed, that certain 
privileges are promised on certain conditions; but then I 
Maintain, that, in all those who are saved, God himself 
works those very conditions. Salvation is promised on the 
condition of faith ; but, in all those who are saved, God 
himself works this condition. Faith is the gift of God. 
Jesus Christ is both the author and finisher of faith. Unto 
you it is given, says the Apostle, not only to believe, but to 
suffer for his name. The conditions which are mentioned 
in Scripture, are conditions of connexion. There is a real 
and inviolable connexion between faith and salvation. It is 
the duty of all to believe, and all who believe shall be saved. 
These propositions are both true—but it is equally true, 
that none will believe, but those whom God by his omnipo- 
tent grace persuades and enables to embrace Jesus Christ, 
freely offered to them in the Gospel. To all others the 
Redeemer may say, as he said to the unbelieving Jews, 
‘« Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life.” No 
less. unwilling are those who believe, till in the day of his 
power God-makes them willing. The careful student of the 
sacred volume will easily perceive, that what God enjoins: 
as a condition, and commands as a duty, he has elsewhere 
promised as a privilege. Wash ye, make ye clean, is a 
duty commanded; but what is thus commanded is else- 
where promised. (Ez. xxxvi. 25,) “Then will I sprinkle 
‘- clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all 
your filthiness and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” The. 
conditional promises to all the heirs of glory are converted 
into absolute promises. For instance, « If ye are willing © 
‘sand obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land,” isa 
conditional promise, but it is turned into an absolute pro- 
mise thus ; “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy 
** power.”” Arminians look only at one side of the subject, 
at the conditions of the promises ; but they seem to forget 
that those very conditions God has promised effectually to 


203 


work in the souls of all who shall be finally saved. Sup- 
posing, fora moment, the Arminian doctrine to be true, that 
- all the promises are conditional, and that the conditions of 
the promises depend on the self-determining power of the 
will ; then it is possible that no: promise should ever be Sul- 
filled. Yor example, ‘‘ He that believes shall be saved,” is 
a conditional promise. Now, if it depend on the free will 
of every man whether he believe or not—if every indivi- 
dual may reject the Gospel, then all may reject it, and 
‘none may be saved! According to this Arminian tenet, it 
is in the power of free will to frustrate the whole work of 
redemption. God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life; but the free will of man 
may render all this love useless. Notwithstanding this love, 
all may perish and not one be saved. Jesus Christ loved 
his church and gave himself for her. 


‘© He was betrayed,,forsook, denied, 
‘¢ Wept, languished, prayed, bled, thirsted, groaned and died; 
* Hung, pierced and bare, insulted by the foe, 5 

“All heaven in tears above, man unconcerned below !” . 


—But it is in the power of free will to render all that Je- 
sus Christ has done and suffered quite vain and without 
effect. -His love may have been exercised. in vain, his 
blood may have been shed in vain, and the ransom, the 
price of our redemption, paid in vain! Doctor .Graves 
tells us, that the Holy Spirit may be resisted, quenched, 
and grieved: upon his own principles he might have added 
' that his mission, and all his gracious operations, 

by the free will of the creature, be 
vain and ineffectual. 


‘may, 
rendered altogether 


© Time flies, death urges, knells call, heaven invites, 
 <©Hell threatens: all exerts; in effort, all; 
‘+ More than creation labours.” 


—But all the exertions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost— 
of prophets and apostles, pastors and teachers—of God, 
angels and men—all these mighty and combined exertions’ 
_ to save sinners, may ultimately prove utterly abortive: the: 
perverse will of man may completely counteract and frus- 
trate them all!—the old serpent may prevail over the seed 
of the woman—Michael and his angels may be completely 
iled, whilst the devil and his angels enjoy an eternal tri- 
umph! Al] this may be done by Arminian free will! Free 


204 


will must turn the balance ; free will must decide, whether 
the dragon or the lamb shall be ultimately victorious! Ac~ 
cording to the Arminian system, and the plain language of 
an Arminian poet, . 


—— “ God wills—Almighty man decrees, 
‘‘ Man is the maker of the almighty fates.”’ 


By the omnipotent power of free will the almighty power 
of God may be counteracted, and all the promises he has 
made relative to the success of his Son’s undertaking, may 
fail of accomplishment! God, who cannot lie, promised 
eternal life before the world began ; but Arminian free will 
can frustrate this promise!—God, who cannot lie, promis- 
ed that Jesus Christ shall see his seed, and prolong his 
days, and that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his 
hand ; but Arminian free will may determine, in opposition 
to all these promises—that the Redeemer shall never see 
one of his seed—one of the travel. of his soul—that he 
shall never be satisfied, but for ever discontent—that the 
pleasure of the Lord shall never prosper in his hand—that 
he shall never obtain the heathen for his inheritance, nor 
the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession + These 
promises, with regard to us, are all, I humbly conceive, 
absolute ; but free will can frustrate them all! It depends 
on free will, according to the Arminian, whether any one of 
them shall ever be accomplished! In vain do Arminians 
attempt to evade the force of the preceding reasoning, by 
saying, that God foreknew that free will would determine 
otherwise. The evasion will notdo. It makes bad worse. 
The foreknowledge of contingent events involves a contra- 
diction, as we shall afterwards see : and we all know that 
contradictions can solve no difficulties. 

But were we to suffer such contradictions to pass; and 
were we to admit that God foresees that some will believe, 
though at the same time they may never believe—still the 
evasion would not do. Were every iota to come to pass 
exactly as God had promised, still it was not God that ful- 
filled those promises. Were I to promise that Dr. Graves 
shall preach first Christmas-day in the Castle Chappel— 
and that the Lord Lieutenant shall be a hearer ; and were 
all this to come to pass as I had promised ; surely nobody 
would say that I fulfilled the promise. The Doctor’s preach- 
ing does not depend upon my will but upon his own will— 
the Lord Lieutenant’s hearing does not depend upon my will 


205 
but upon his own. Supposing, therefore, that the one 
should preach, and the other should hear, as I had promised, 
surely it requires no logic to prove, that it was not 1 who 
fulfilled the promise. Just so with regard to the promises 
made tothe Redeemer—the fulfilment of them, according 
to Arminian principles, does not depend on the will of God, 
but on the free will of the creature, Supposing, therefore, 
that every iota that God promised to his Son should actu- 
ally come to pass, still no person could say, that God had 
fulfilled those promises. On the Arminian hypothesis, it 
would be impossible for the Deity to fulfil one of them! 
From the preceding reasoning, I hope it is evident—that 
when any believe, repent and are saved, itis God who makes 
them to differ from those who continue in unbelief and im- 
penitence—and if this be so, the doctrine of election and 
reprebation is established. If God ‘makes a difference, he 
must have determined to make that difference. The Deity 
can do nothing without determining to do it. And as there 
cannot possibly be any new determination in the divine 
mind, he must have determined to make that difference from 
all eternity. In other words; from all eternity he must. 
have chosen to salvation all those who shall be finally saved. 
This ts election.—On the other hand, God does not work. 
faith, repentance, &c. in the minds of all, He leaves some 
in their unbelief, impenitence, and wickedness, on account 
of which he finally condemns them. Of course, he must 
have determined so to do—determined, not in time, for 
there are in the divine mind no new determinations, but from. 
all eternity'— This is reprobation.—If it is just in God now 
in time to make such distinctions between one class of his 
rebel subjects and another, where was the injustice in decree- 
ing from eternity to make those distinctions ? On such 
principles, as well as ona multitude of express declarations 
of Scripture, some of which shall be afterwards quoted, I 
rest the doctrine of predestination. 


SECTION III. 


Election and Reprobation more formally defended; and 
the attacks of the most eminent Anti-Calvinists repelled. 
The decrees of election and reprobation are stigmatized 
by Arminians, Socinians and Arians, with the most. oppros - 


brious epithets. Dr. Puce, Me Millar, Dr. Graves, and 


- 


206 


Bishop Mant, scarcely ever mention them without prefixing 
such epithets as the following—arbitrary and irrespective, 
cruel and unrelenting, severe and terrific, gloomy and horrt- 
ble! These epithets are generally prefixed in couples, as 
if one of them would be too little to excite in the minds of 
- men a suitable degree of horror and disgust. 
Asan abusive epithet, the adjective arbitrary isadmirably 
‘adapted for exciting an odium. It conveys the idea of 
something capricious and tyrannical. If, however, there 
is nothing capricious or tyrannical in divine providence, 
neither can there be any thing of a capricious or tyrannical 
nature in the divine decrees; for the latter are an exact 
copy or counterpart of the former. The decrees of God, 
being the dictates of infinite wisdom, and being infinitely 


opposed to every thing capricious or tyrannical, are designa~ 


ted, in Scripture—‘‘ THE COUNSEL OF HIs WILL.” 
The epithet irrespective is also well calculated to excite 
an odium against the doctrine of divine decrees.—Ina quah- 
fied sense it may indeed be admitted, as applied to election. 
We have no objection to the term, if it is only meant to 
convey the idea, that election was not founded on foreseen 
faith, or good works, or any other virtuous qualification or 
disposition of its object. In this sense we fully admit that 
election is irrespective. The Arminian doctrine, that elec- 
tion was founded on foreseen faith and good works, has its 
foundation neither in Scripture, nor in reason, nor yet in 
the standards of the Church of England. It has no founda- 
tion in Scripture. Election, in Scripture, is described as 
an election of grace, and if it be of grace, it is no more of 
works. In Scripture we read, not that those who were fore- 
seen to believe were ordained to eternal life, but that as 
many were ordained to eternal life believed. a 
Dr. B. boasts of the simplicity of his system, and wishes 


his hearers to believe, that, in the support of it, there is no_ 


necessity fora deviation from the received version. The 


reverse, however, is the fact. New translations and verbal. 


criticisms are constantly necessary. Acts xiii, 48, affords 
a striking example. © Our translation, ‘‘ As many as were 


‘¢ ordained to eternal life believed,’’ is so clear a proof of © 


predestination, that, in order to subvert it, all the powers 
of verbal criticism have been roused to action. Socinians, 
- Arminians, and Arians, all attack our version. As the case 
is desperate, the opposition is determined. When the as- 
sailants fail in argument, they increase in’ confidence, and, 


207 


by pouring contempt on their Calvinistic opponents, they 


vainly hope to drive them off the field. Dr. Adam Clarke. 
represents the text as pitifully misunderstood by the Calvin- | 


ists, and the Bishop of Down and Connor quotes with ap- 
probation Pyle and Grotius, who pronounce. those blind 
who cannot see the propriety of their new version. Dr. A, 
Clarke very properly observes, that we should be careful to 
examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its 
meaning. He then proceeds thus: ‘‘ Whatever rerayysvor 
<¢ may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is 
<‘ neither wporeraypevor nor wpoopituevor, which the Apostle 
“<< uses, but ceraypevor, which includes no idea of preordina- 
«¢ tion or predestination of any kind.”? What! Has the 


Doctor forgotten his favorite maxim, that with the De it 


past knowledge and present knowledge are the same ?— 
Or does he need to be told, that with God to destine and to 
predestinate, to ordain and to preordain, are all one? The 
Doctor’s criticism, made with so much pomp, depends 
upon the absurd hypothesis, that. there are in the divine 
mind new thoughts, purposes, and determinations! Grant 
that any were ordained to eternal life, and—unless there be 
in the divine mind variableness and shadow of turning— 
the conclusion inevitably follows, that they were pre-ordain- 
ed. -The word translated ordained, our opponents render 
disposed, well disposed, or possessed of good dispositions. 
On this translation [ would make the following remarks : 
“1. It substitutes a far-fetched meaning (if any meaning 
_at all) for an ordinary one. Whether is that system more 


likely to be true, which takes words in thei common ac-. 


ceptation, or that which constantly needs the aid of far- 


 ~ fetched meanings ? 


_. 2. Ido not conceive that it has ever been satisfactorily 
proved, that the word has any such meaning as that assign- 
ed to it by our opponents. The instances adduced by 


Whitby, to prove that the word signifies persons internally | 


disposed, and not outwardly ordained—though relied on 
with great confidence by the Lord Bishop of Down and 
Conner, and other Anti-Calvinistic writers—appear to me. 
altogether unsatisfactory. If 1 am not much mistaken; 
they completely fail in establishing the point. In affixing 
toa word a meaning which has not been generally received, 
and which is disputed, it is necessary to quote instances, 
_which cannot be explained on the principle of any of its 
ordinary significations. I lay down this as a canon, which 


7. 


208 


I flatter myself no candid critic will controvert. On the 
principle of this canon, I proceed to examine Whitby’s m- 
stances. His first is, “ Acts xx. 13, St. Paul went on foot 
to Assos ‘“ srw yag nv diarsrayusvos, for so he was disposed 
to do.”” Now, I appeal to every candid critic, if the Doc- 
tor’s translation be not quite gratuitous, and if the words’ 
would not be more naturally translated thus—for so he 
was appointed according to mutual arrangement. The pre- 
position di shows that an arrangement had been made be- 
tween Paul and the ship’s company. 

The Doctor’s second instance is Heclus. x. 1, nynwovie 

‘Cuverov reraywevy eros, ‘* The government of the wise man 

‘« will be well ordered or disposed.’’ But this refers not'to 
the internal dispositions of the mind, but to the external 
administration of government. It is, therefore, totally in- 
applicable. meee te) 

His third instance is Philo’s address to Cain, ‘* Thow 
“‘ needest not fear being killed by them who are ev dy. 
“ geroymevor Supayic, ** ranked on thy side,” 7. e. of the’ 
“‘ same dispositions and affections.” Now, to say that’ 
this Greek phrase is designed to express the internal dis- 
positions, and not the external hostilities of the enemies: 
of the church, is nothing but a mere begging of the 
question. . 

His fourth instance is the words of Philo respecting 
‘‘ those children, who, having had vicious: parents, have 
«« themselves proved virtuous.”” He says that they are 
awe reroywevor raze, ** placed in a better rank.” And, 
speaking of Esau and Jacob, he represents Esau as fierce, 
subject to anger and other passions, and governed by his’ - 
brutish part ; but Jacob as a lover of virtue and truth, andi 
so ev rn Perriovs Teraymevov rage, ‘¢ placed in a better rank 
‘¢ of men, or one of a better temper and dispositian.”’ Ja- 
cob was placed in a better rank ; but who placed him ? 
was it God or himself? The children mentioned above — 
were placed in a better rank, but who placed them ? was | 
it God or themselves ? To say that either Jacob or: those’ 
children wrought in themselves good dispositions, and by 
this means placed themselves in a better rank, is a bare- 
faced begging of the question, and contrary to the whole 
tenor of Revelation. (Rom. ix. 11-13, (‘* For the’ chil- 
‘¢ dren being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
‘¢ evil, that the purpose of God according to election might 
«stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was 


\ 


209 
‘« said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it. 
“is written, Jacob have Tloved, but Esau have [ hated.” 
‘His fifth instance is still less to the purpose. Samuel 
was reroywevoc dew, “ one well disposed towards God.?— 
This [regard as a complete mistranslation—dew is the dative 
of the agent. The clause should be translated, «“* Samuel | 
“was ordained, appointed, or placed ny God?’ (according 
as the context may require.) The rule of syntax which 
warrants this translation is the following : Agens aliquando 
effertur in dativo; sic, ¢1 TEMPAXTON TOG AADAC ; Quid ab 
aliis factum est ? , 
Whitby’s last instance would induce one to think, that 
ire had abandoned the meaning for which he was contend- 
* ing, and had completely come over to the Calvinistic camp. 
It ts the words of Epictetus, eo dcou TETOAYLEVOS EIS TUUTYY FHV 
~ rogiv, being by God placed in that rank. The person here 
is represented as placed in a rank, not by his own inclina- 
tions or dispositions, but by God, or in other words, by di- 
vine ordination and appointment—God exciting him, as 
Simplicius interprets. —Now, surely this instance, so far 
from overturning, completely establishes, the received ver- 
sion. On the whole, we deny the word reToywevos has-—in 
any one of those instances—the meaning which our oppo- 
nents attempt to impose upon it. ‘The most learned lexico- 
graphers and philologists acknowledge no such meaning. 
Schleusner does not recognise it—his translation of the 
text is, ‘ Quot quot destinati erant a Deo felicitati Chrig- 
‘* tianorum wterne.”’—And the learned Morus, though a 
decided Anticalvinist, translates it thus: Atque eam 
‘* (doctrinam) amplexi sunt fide quicunque felicitati zter- 
** ne destinati erant.”” Whether Dr. A. Clarke’s charge 
of prejudice do not recoil upon himself, and on Anticalvi- 
nists in general, the learned reader is now left to judge. 
Should criticism fail, the Lord Bishop of Down and Con. 
nor imagines he can make his escape, by alleging that God 
ordained to eternal life the persons mentioned, on the fore- 
sight of their good dispositions—but the evasion will not 
do.—From the beginning ‘of Genesis to the end of Reve- 
lation—from the creation of the world down to the present 
day, his Lordship will not find one single person possessed 
of good dispositions till implanted by the Almighty. In _ 
Scripture we read, hot that those who were foreseen to be 
holy, or possessed of good dispositions, were chosen in 
Christ before the foundation of the world, but that « we 
19% : 


210 


‘«‘ were chosen in him before the foundation of the world, 
that we might be holy.’”’—Holiness and good dispositions 
are represented, not as the causes or foundation, but as the 
fruits and effects of election. What our Saviour said to 
his Disciples in the days of his flesh, is equally applicable 
to believers in every age, ‘“‘ Ye have not chosen me, but I 
«« have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should bring 
<< forth much fruit.””>. As we love God because he first 
loved us, so we choose him because he first chose us.— 
(Psal. Ixv. 4) ‘‘ Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, 
‘¢ and causest to approach unto thee.” 

2, That election is founded on foreseen faith and good 
works, is contrary, not only to Scripture, but also to rea- 
son. On Arminian principles, it involves a contradiction. 
Arminians allege, that it depends on the free will of the 
ereature whether any believe or do good works. Accord- 
ing to them, it is possible that all may remain unbelievers 
and wicked. Now, if the Deity foresee that some will be- 
lieve and do good works, and yet those persons may never 
believe nor do good works—it follows, that what God fore- 
sees as future may nevertheless not be future—and what 
he foresees will come to pass may nevertheless not come to 

ass—it follows, that God may be mistaken and disappoint- 
ed!—-that he foresees and does not foresee at the same 
time! I conclude therefore—and I think I do it on the in- 
controvertible principles of mathematical demonstration— 
I conclude, that election could not possibly be founded on 
foreseen faith and good works, because faith and good 
works, on Arminian principles, could not possibly be fore- 
seen. . 

3, As the doctrine of election founded on foreseen faith 
and good works is both unscriptural and unreasonable, so 
it has no foundation in the Articles and Homilies of the 
Church of England. Bishop Mant, and Doctors Millar 
and Graves, wish us to believe, that the Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles are Arminian—and that the clergy of the Church of 
England were Arminian at the time the Articles were 
framed: but they labour in vain.—The following extracts 
from the letters of Dr. Millar, of New-York, abundantly 
prove the vanity of the attempt, “‘ Calvin was not only re- 
‘« spectfully consulted by the English Reformers ; but he 
‘¢ had also much influence among them. That great defe- 
“rence was paid to his judgment, will appeér from this 
“ fact, that on the first appearance of the English Liturgy, 


211 


** it prescribed praying for the dead, chrism, extreme une-, 
** tion, and other Popish superstitions. These Calvin, ina 
“* letter to the Protector, very frankly and decidedly blamed.. 
‘* ‘The consequence of which was, that all these offensive 
«¢ things were left out, agreeably to his advice. Dr. Hey- 
** lin himself declares, that these alterations were made in 
“‘ compliance with Calyin’s wishes.—“« The first Liturgy,” 
says he, ‘‘ was discontinued, and the second superinduced 
“upon it, to give satisfaction unto Calvin’s cavils, the cu- 
** riosities of some, and the mistakes of others, his friends 
‘* and followers.’? And Dr. Nichols gives us the same in- 
formation. ‘+ Four years afterwards,” says he, ‘‘ the book 
‘* of Common Praner underwent another review ; wherein 
‘“ some ceremonies and usages were laid aside, and some 
“* new prayers added, at the instance of Mr. Calvin of Ge- 
‘* neva, and Bucer, a foreign Divine who was invited to be 
“a Professor at Cambridge.’ Nor was the authority of 
** Calvin without its influence in drawing up the Articles of 
“the Church of England. It is commonly said by our 
‘* Episcopal brethren, that those Articles are anti-Calvinis- 
‘¢ tic, and that especially on the doctrine of Predestination, 
*< as exhibited in the seventeenth Article, the Reformers 
‘* hold, and meant to express, a different opinion from those 
*< of Calvin. Now, it happens, that this Article itself bears 
‘the most unquestionable internal evidence of the contra- 
‘‘ ry.—The qualifying clause toward the end of it, which 
‘* has been quoted as decisive proof that the framers reject- 
“ed Calvinism, is nearly quoted from Calvin’s Institutes ; 
‘‘ and the latter part of it is a literal translation of that Re- 
_ “former’s caution against the abuse of this doctrine. For 
‘‘ evidence of the former, see his Institutes Gi. 2, 4, 5) 
‘< compared with the article.—For proof of the latter, read 
‘* the following—* Proinde in rebus agendis, ea est nobis 
** perspicienda Dei voluntas quam verbo suo declarat.”? Tn- 
“¢ stit. 1. 17, 5.—Furthermore, in our doings, that will of 
‘* God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared 
** to us in the word of God.” Art. 17th.—The Thirty- 
‘“‘ nine Articles of the Church of England are undoubtedly 
“* Calvinistie. This is proved, not only by the bare inspec- 
‘‘ tion of the articles themselves, but also by the known 
*“ sentiments of those who framed them ; and by the deci- 
‘‘ sive interpretation of some of the ablest Bishops and 
-* other Divines that ever adorned that Church. The same 
“ convocation which drew up the Thirty-nine Articles, re- 


Ce 
S¢ 


66 


€é 


212 


viewed, corrected, formally approved, and ordered to be © 
published, as it now stands, the celebrated Catechism of 
Dr. Newel.—This Catechism is acknowledged, by the 
worst enemies of Calvin, to be decidedly Calvinistic. It 
is acknowledged to be so by Bishop Cleaver, who, a few 
years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet the Con- 
vocation, which embraced al} the principal Dignitaries of 


‘the Church, publicly recommended it, ‘‘as a standing 
‘summary of the doctrines professed in that Church ;” 


and, many years after, it was held in such high esteem 
by Archbishops Whitgift and Parker, and other contem- 


‘porary Prelates, that even Ministers were enjoined to stu- 


dy it, that they might learn true divinity from it.* The 
illustrious reformer, and martyr, Bradford, a short time 


‘before he suffered, wrote and published a decidedly Cal- 


vinistic work on election and predestination, which he 
sent to Archbishop Cranmer, and to Bishops Ridley and 
Latimer, who all gave it their approbation ; after which 


‘ it received the approbation of the rest of the eminent Mi- 


nisters in and about London.’’t — 


«© The famous Lambeth Articles, formed in the reign of 


Queen Elizabeth, are acknowledged by all who ever read 
them, to be among the most strongly Calvinistical com- 
positions that ever were penned. Yet these Articles 
were drawn up and signed by Archbishop Whitgift, 
that very Prelate of whose character and principles Dr, 
Hobart frequently speaks in the most exalted terms, and 
whom he holds up to view as one of the most illustrious 
Divines and fathers of the Church of England. The 
Archbishop was assisted in this service by the Bishops of 
London and Bangor, and by some others.. After receiv- 
ing the public approbation of these Dignitaries, the Arti- 
cles were sent to the Archbishop of York’ and the Bishop 
of Rochester, who also subscribed them. Thus ratified, 
Archbishop Whitgift sent them to the Unisersity of Cam- 
bridge, with a letter, in which he ‘declared, ‘« That these 
articles were not to be considered as laws and decrees, 


but as propositions, which he and his brethren were per- 


suaded were true, and corresponding with the doctrine 


* Strype’s Annals, 312—316.—Life of Parker, 122, 301. . 
+ Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 350. The editors of the Chris- 


tian Observer attest that they have seen Bradford’s Treatise, and that 


it 


is unquestionably Calvinistic. 


243 
‘+ professed in the Church of England, and established by. 
«© the laws of the land.* Nor is this. all: It having been, 
*« suggested by some, that the Archbishop agreed to these. 
** Articles, rather for the sake of peace, than because. he. 
‘« believed them ; Strype, his episcopal biographer, repels 
‘‘ the charge with indignation ; declaring that. such an in- 
“* sinuation is as false as it is mean and disparaging to the. 
‘* Primate.} We have seen also in a foregoing part of this, 
'* letter, by the confession of Heylin himself, an implacable. 
‘enemy of Calvin, that the great body of the Bishops and. 
‘* other clergy of the Church of England, were doctrinal, 
“« Calvinists, for more than half a century after the: articles. 
““ were formed. And we.have found a modern Episcopal, 
‘* clergyman asserting, on. undeniable evidence, that.‘ Cal-. 
*« vin’s Institutions were read and studied.in both.the Uni- 
“* versities by every student in divinity, for. a. considerable 
‘“ portion of a century ; nay, that by a Convocation held at: - 
‘* Oxford, that book was recommended .to the general study: 
‘‘ of the nation.”” All the Delegates from. the Church of 
‘“ England to the Synod of Dort, among whom were. Bi-. ; 
‘* shop: Carleton, Bishop. Hall, and Bishop Devenant, for- 
‘* mally subscribed to the five Calvinistic Articles drawn up 
** and adopted by that venerable Synod. On. their return, 
“¢ home, they were attacked: by a, certain writer, and charg- 
‘* ed with having departed from. the. public standard of their. 
** own Church.—A gainst this attack they thought proper to 
‘‘-defend themselves, and accordingly wrote a Joint Attest- 
‘* ation, which contains the following passage : ‘‘ Whatso- 
‘ever there was assented unto and. subscribed by us, cone. . 
‘* cerning the Five Articles, either in the joint synodical, 
‘¢ judgment, or in our particular collegiate suffrage, is not 
_ “ only warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also con- 
‘* formable to. the received doctrine of our said venerable 
‘« mother; which we are ready to maintain and justify. 
‘« against all gainsayers.{ Again, Bishop, Hall, in a work: 
‘< of his own, addressing some who had charged him, and. 
** other Bishops of his day, with entertaining Arminian sen- 
** timents, as to the doctrine of election, thus, indignantly 
‘‘ replies to the charge—‘ You add, Election upon. faith. 


_ * Strype’s Life of Whitgift, p. 461—363, 
-€ Ibid. p. 462. picitiee. 
~# See their Joint Attestation, 


~ 


214 


‘‘ foreseen.’ ‘* What! nothing’ but gross untruths? fs 
‘« this the doctrine of the Bishops of England? Have they 
“not strongly confuted it, in Papists and *Arminians ? 
«¢ Have they not cried it down to the lowest pit of Hell ?”’ 
Such are the arguments by which Dr. Millar, of New- 
York, has proved, that the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
Church of England are Calvinistic, and that the great body 
of the clergy were Calvinists at the time those articles were 
framed. ‘Uhat the evidence is decisive, | humbly presume, 
no candid reader will venture to deny. Divines of the Es- 
tablishment may preach, if they please, the doctrine of 
election founded on foreseen faith; love, and good works ; 
but let them not charge with that doctrine, either the ‘Thir- 
ty-nine Articles, or their reforming forefathers. ‘That very 
doctrine which these modern Divines are now crying up to 
the starry heavens, the English Divines, the fathers of the 
Reformation—if we believe Bishop Hail—‘ cried down to 
‘* the lowest pit of hell!” = Need EA ao Sey, 
Having endeavoured to prove, and I hope with success, 
that the doctrine of election, founded on foréseen faith and 
good works, has its foundation, neither in Scripture, reason, 
nor the Thirty-nine Articles, I would now proceed to ob- 
serve—that when our opponents characterise election as 
irrespective, if all they mean is, that election was not found- 
ed on any foreseen virtuous qualification of its object, we 
have no objection to the application of the epithet. We 
believe, however, that in the decree of election men were 
chosen, not only to eternal hfe, but also to faith, holiness, 
and all those means which lead to that end. If, in any 
sense inconsistent with this, our opponents denominate elec- 
tion irrespective, we spurn the epithet as inapplicable and 
The great popular outcry against predestination is—that 
it supersedes the use of means, and/is quite inimical to ho- 
liness and good works. _I regret to find learned Divines 
reiterating this stale objection, after it has been answered a 
thousand times. Dr. B. (p. 172) writes thus : 
_ It (predestination) contradicts every exhortation to ho- 
‘¢ liness and faith, every dissuasive from sin and infidelity, 
«< every conditional promise of everlasting life, and every 
“¢ warning against endless perdition, that we find in his 
‘‘ (Christ’s) discourses. In fact, if it were true, the me- 
‘< diation, mission, death, and intercession of Christ, would 
‘ be absolutely nugatory and ineffectual; since they could 


215 


‘* neither improve the condition or prospects of the elect 
“few, nor redeem the reprobate from that fate to which 
«< they are destined by the eternal and irreversible decree of 
rethie Almiohtyse™ (9 710 at 
Powerful reasoning indeed! The purport of it is this : 
‘* God decreed to bring the elect to the enjoyment of eternal 
*« life, by means of exhortations, warnings, and promises ; 
‘* and therefore, these exhortations, warnings, and promises, 
“are absolutely nugatory and ineffectual ! God determined 
“to save the elect by the mediation, mission, death, and 
- ** resurrection of Christ; and therefore the mediation, mis- 
' sion, death, and resurrection of Christ, are absolutely 
““nugatory and ineffectual! God determined to punish the 
“* reprobate for their sin and infidelity; and therefore every 
‘« dissuasive from sin and infidelity, and every warning 
‘against endless perdition, are absolutely nugatory and in- 
‘« effectual!” Admirable logic !—Bishop Mant, in his 
- Bampton Lectures (p. 146), urges the same objection— 
quoting Bishop Sherlock, he writes thus : 
_ “If Tbe elected, no sins can possibly bereave me of the 
“kingdom of heaven: if reprobated, no good deeds can 
““ advance me to it.”” Such was the language of a German 
“ potentate in former times, when his friends admonished 
“him of his vicious conversation and dangerous state. 
** An objection,” remarks Heylin, «« not more old than com- 
“mon: but such, I must confess, to which I never found a 
“satisfactory answer from the pen of Supralapsarian, or 
‘¢ Sublapsarian, within the small compass of my reading.”’ 
_ So, it appears, that this old and common objection is, in 
the estimation of these learned writers, unanswerable. At 
least, they have never met with any satisfactory answer. 
Now, I do not promise to give a satisfactory answer; for 
some minds are not easily satisfied ; but with great ease, I 
can give an answer which ought to satisfy. It is this. The 
objection separates what God has joined. Election and ho- 
_liness are inseparably connected in the same decree. We 
are ““ chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spi- 
“rit and belief of the truth.” But the Arminian objection 
Tuns thus: “If I be chosen to salvation through sanctifica- 
“* tion of the Spirit, I shall be saved whether I be sanctified 
*‘ or not—if I be chosen to salvation through belief of the 
“truth, I shall be saved whether I believe or not—if God 
‘¢ from all eternity decreed to save me from my sins, I shall 
‘be saved whether I continue in my sins or not!”’—Such 
is the logic of Arminians, by which they hope to overturn 


/ 


216 


the Calvinistic doctrine of election! Dr. Bruce, and the 
learned Bishops Sherlock and Mant, might have carried 
their objection farther, and reasoned thus: ‘“ If God deter- 
‘‘ mined to save the Apostle Paul by means of a ship, there 
«¢ wasno need of a ship! If God determined to save the 
‘«‘ Apostle by the instrumentality of sailors, there was no 
«‘ need of sailors!”—When the Apostle Paul declared, 
«¢ Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved,’ had 
Dr. B. and the learned Bishops been present, they would 
have immediately exclaimed, «‘ What! not saved! [f God 
«< has determined to save you, ye shall be saved whether the 
«© sailors abide in the ship or not! God has determined to 
<< save you by the medium of a ship, and by the instrumen- 
“tality of sailors, and therefore the ship and the sailors are 
“ guite nugatory and ineffectual !”? So much for that old and 
‘common objection, which Dr. B. relies on with so much 
confidence, and which the learned and talented Bishops, 
Sherlock and Mant, consider as altogether unanswerable. 
In the divine decrees, means and ends, like links in a 
chain, are inseparably connected. Now, is it not evident, 
that the closer the connexion between means and ends, the 
greater the encouragement to use means. The links of a 
chain being inseparably connected, when we pull one link, 


we are quite confident the whole chain will follow. Were | 


the links detached, we would not have the same confidence 
orencouragement. Such a connexion between means and 
ends encourages Calvinists to activity and diligence—to 
avoid all sinand to practise every virtue. They are encourag- 
ed to ‘‘ abound in the work of the Lord, for as much as they 
‘¢ know, that their labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.”’ 
—The Apostle Paul, in spiritual as well as in temporal 
matters, acted on those consistent principles. He had 
made his calling and election sure. He was assured that 
God would preserve him to his heavenly kingdom. But 
this assurance did not supersede the use of means. He 
kept under his body, and brought it into subjection, lest, 


whilst he preached the Gospel to others, he himself should _ 


be a castaway. From this and similar texts, Dr. Graves 


and other Arminians infer, that believers may possibly fall — 


from a state of grace. The inference, however, is com- 
pletely illegitimate. With equal propriety they might infer 
from the declaration of the Apostle, ‘‘ Except these abide 
<¢ in the ship, ye cannot be saved,” that it was possible for 
Paul never to reach Rome, notwithstanding the divine assu- 


217 


rance to the contrary. Such propositions show the con- 
nexion between means and ends, but do not at all prove the 
possibility, that either the means should not be employed, 
or the ends not accomplished. Our Saviour says, speaking 
of the Father, ‘ f know him ; and if I should say I know 
‘‘ him not, I would be a liar’ like unto you.”? Would any 
Arminian, from this hypothetical proposition, infer, that it 
was possible for Jesus Christ, either to deny the Father, or 
to bea lar? Why then do they infer, from similar propo- 
sitions, that it is possible for believers to fall away from a 
state of grace, or the divine decrees to fail of accomplish- 
ment ? 

Having endeavoured to show in what sense election is 
irrespective ; and having endeavoured to prove, that it is 
not unfavourable to good works, nor inconsistent with the 
means of grace and salvation; I now proceed to animad- 
vert on the epithets, arbitrary and irrespective, as applied 
to reprobation. In what sense our Opponents apply these 
epithets, will be best understood by a quotation or two. 
Dr. Graves, (Predestination, p. 116), writes thus: « So 
‘* unboundedly merciful, so unspeakably encouraging, is the 
“ genuine doctrine of the Gospel of Peace: how totally 
‘“ repugnant to a scheme which represents, that all who are 
‘* not in the number of the elect are passed over, rejected, 
“* or reprobated by God, who has by an eternal unalterable 
‘« decree, preordained them, before they were born, to cer- 
‘* tain and everlasting death ; for which God himself pre- 
“‘ pares them, to which they are devoted, not because he 
‘« foresees their unworthiness, but solely because he wills it, 
‘* and which from the very hour of their birth he hath fore- 
‘‘ ordained them not to escape, and hath precluded them 
‘* from the means of escaping.” Bad as this quotation is, 
it is not so bad as that portion of the Bampton Lectures 
from which it is extracted. The Bishop’s representation 
of Calvinism was too terrific for the learned Professor. 
Shuddering at the picture, he broke off the quotation be- 
fore he came to the end of the description. It runs thus: 
(Bampton Lectures, p. 129) ‘It is the Calvinistic doctrine, 
*€ that all those, who are not in the number of the elect, 
‘< are passed over, rejected, or reprobated by God; who 
_** has by an eternal unalterable decree preordained, predes- 
*< tined and doomed them, before they were born, to certain | 
-“ and everlasting death, ruin, perdition and damnation ; for 
““ which he himself fits and prepares them, to. which they 

19 ae 


18 


‘¢ are devoted, not because he foresees their unworthiness, 
‘ but solely because he wills it; and which from the very 
‘‘ hour of their birth, he hath made it impossible for them 
‘* to escape, and hath precluded and repels them from the 


‘means of escaping.”? Another sample of his Lordship’s © 


mode of representing Calvinism we find in p. 252: ** The 
‘*¢ Calvinist-teaches, that God elected a few individuals to 
‘‘ salvation, and that Christ died to make atonement ,for 
‘* their sins alone, to the exclusion of the great mass of 
«mankind; thatthe salvation of these elect depends solely 
‘‘ upon certain absolute and irrespective decrees of God, 
‘‘ and is effected solely by the grace of God, so that no 
‘* conditions are required to be fulfilled, no co-operation to 
_ “be given on their parts, but’ that, however great and 
‘‘numerous may be their sins, they are eternally sure of 
‘salvation: and that the great bulk of mankind are eter- 
‘nally doomed to perdition, no reference whatever being 
‘‘made to any faults of theirs ; no possibility whatever be- 
‘ing allowed them of escaping their doom; the sole cause 
‘of which is the pleasure, and the sole object of it the 
‘¢ glory of God.” . 

As an appendix to such a description, why did not his 
Lordship add, ‘‘ From such Calvinism—such horrible Cal- 
‘“¢ yinism—such monstrous Calvinism—Good Lord deliver 
‘us.’ Had the good Bishop added this prayer, I am per- 
fectly convinced, that not only all the Socinians, Arminians, 
and Arians in the world, but that all the Calvinists on the 
face of the globe, would have echoed in one universal re- 
sponse—Amen! Amen! . | 

I can assure the learned Bishop, that Calvinists regard 
with unutterable. contempt, and unqualified detestation, the 
doctrine contained in the preceding quotations. «They be- 


lieve in no such doctrines ; they teach no such doctrines ; - 


they abhor all such doctrines. J regret much; that talents 
so respectable as those of his Lordship, should be exhaust- 


ed in beating the air—in refuting doctrines which nobody | 
holds—in charging upon Calvinists doctrines the very reverse © 
of those which they believe—doctrines which they hold in— 


the utmost contempt and abhorrence. What then do'Cal- 
vinists believe? I answer negatively, hey do not hold 
themselves bound to believe every thing that Calvin taught, 
that Austin taught, that Zanchy taught, or that any one of 
our reformers taught.’ Much less do they hold themselves 
bound to believe every foolish thing said by Calvinists for 


219° 


three hundred years past! ‘To collect those foolish sayings 
—to add some things which they never said—to- combine 
all these into a system—and to call that system Calvinism 
—is neither candid, generous, nor just. It is an insult 
offered to the Calvinistic system. For such disingenuous 
conduct there is no apology. Even the mitre of a Bishop 
should not screen him from censure. Every person knows, 
or at least might know, what Calvininism is. It is the doe- 
trines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith 
‘and Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England—doc- 
irines as different from Bishop Mant’s Calvinism, as light is 
from darkness. Were any writer to proféss to give an ac- 
count of the doctrines of the Church of England, and in- 
stead of exhibiting those doctrines as they are stated in the 
Thirty-nine articles, should rake together the most foolish 
things written by the members of that Church for 300 years 
past—adding some things which they never wrote-——and 
then denominate such a compound of folly and nonsense, _ 
“* The doctrines of the Church of England’?—in what point - 
of light would such a writer be viewed by Bishop Mant 
and his learned coadjutors. What terms could be found in 
the English language sufficiently strong to characterise such 
a work? ‘To the learned Bishop, and his Arminian col- 
_ leagues, I would only say, ‘« Whatsoever ye would that Cal. - 
“ vinists should do unto you, do ye even the same unto 
‘‘ them ; for this is the law and the prophets. 
_ What Calvinist ever taught, that God elected to salva- 
tion only a “ few individuals?” No Calvinist ever taught 
so. All Calvinists believe, that the elect are so far from 
_ being only a few individuals, that they are ten thousand 
times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands—that they 
are “‘a number which no man can number.” It is no tenet 
of Calvinism—though Bishop Mant, Dr. Graves, Dr. Mil- 
lar, and Dr. Bruce, are constantly representing it as a Cal- 
_ Vinistic tenet. It is no tenet of Calvinism, that the num- 
_ ber of the elect is smaller than that of the reprobate. 
_ Many Calvinists believe the very reverse. Our Westmin- 
ster Divines wisely abstain from giving any opinion on the 
_ subject. With regard to the number or proportion, of 
those who will be finally saved, we have no controversy 
with any, except with those who maintain a universal res- 
toration. From the very nature of the case, all rational 
Controversy is excluded. <« Secret things belong to the 
“Lord our God.” —Socinians, Arminians, Arians, and 


~220 

Calvinists are equally ignorant, and must remain so, till the 
judgment of the great day. Our opponents may therefore 
save themselves the trouble of any reference to the number 
of the elect, for on this subject we profess ourselves totally 
ignorant. Should any ask me, ‘‘ Are there few that be 
«saved ?”’ I can only answer, in the words of our Savi- 
our, “‘ Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I 
‘© say unto you, will seek to enter in, but shall not be 
*¢ able.”’ , 

Is the Bishop’s statement true, that, on Calvinistic prin- 
ciples, the elect do not co-operate with God in the work 
of their own salvation? Jé ts not. Calvinists believe, 
that the elect, though passive in regeneration,* are active 
in sanctification : they are ‘‘ workers together with God,” 
‘and work out their salvation with fear and trembling.” 
They ask, they seek, they knock—they run, they strive, 
they fight—they give all diligence to make their calling and 
election sure—they ‘ press into the kingdom of God,’’ and 
take ‘‘ the kingdom of heaven by force.” : 

Is the Bishop’s representation true—that the elect, on 
_Calvinistic principles, however great and numerous their 
sins, are eternally sure of their salvation ?—J¢ ts not.—The 
elect can have no assurance of their salvation till after their 
conversion.—And after conversion, many of them have no 
assurance during life. And even in those who enjoy that 
privilege, it is often by sin interrupted and lost. Such is 
the doctrine of the Westminster Confession (Chap. 18, 
sect. 3, 4)—such is the doctrine of the Larger Catechism 
(Quest. 81)—such is the doctrine of Calvinists in general 
—a doctrine very different, indeed, from that with which 
they are unjustly accused by his Lordship. , 

Is the statement of Bishop Mant true—that, upon Calvi- — 
nistic principles, God has preordained, predestinated {and 
doomed the reprobate to everlasting death, ruin, perdition, 
and damnation, without any reference to their fault ’—It ts 
not.—It is as far remote from truth as light is from dark- . 
ness. This will appear by comparing it, or rather contrasé-— 


* Calvinists maintain, that, even before regeneration, it is the duty 
of all to attend all the ordinances of divine institution, and to use all 
the means of grace which God has appointed—and that it is to those 
who attend such ordinances, and use such means, that he usually coms 
municates his saving grace. Bh Hews) 1 


224° 


ing it with the genuine Calvinistic doctrine, as it is dis- 
tinctly stated by the Westminster Divines. In their Con- 
fession (Chap. ili. sec. 7) they affirm—that God has or- 
dained the reprobate to dishonour and wrath for their sin, 
to the praise of his glorious sustice. dn their Larger 
Catechism (Quest. 13) they assert—that God has passed 
by the reprobate, and ‘‘ foreordained them to dishonour 
‘‘ and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted to the praise of 
‘the glory of his susticu.’’ The blasphemous doctrine 
charged upon the Calvinists by Bishop Mant, is—that the 
willand pleasure of God, and not men’s sins, are the cause 
of their damnation. Their own doctrine is the very reverse, 
that no decrees of God, but men’s own sins, are the sole. 
cause of their condemnation. God’s treatment of the re- 
probate is entirely judicial—it proceeds upon principles of 
strict gustice. Upon what ground will he pronounce the 
doom of the wicked at the judgment of the great day ? 
Upon the very same ground did he determine from all eter- 
nity soto doomthem. If there will be no injustice or cru- 
~ elty in dooming the wicked to eternal misery for their sins, 
there could not possibly be any injustice or cruelty in decree- 
ing so to doom them. Doctor Graves argues against pre- 
destination. from the justice and mercy of God; but if 
God is not unjust or unmerciful in consigning men to eter- 
nal separation from his presence, he was not unjust nor 
unmerciful in decreeing thus to consign them. If there is 
no cruelty nor injustice in doing a thing, there can be no 
cruelty nor injustice in decreeing to do it. Whatever God 
does, he decrees or determines to do: and, as there are no 
new determinations in the divine mind, he decrees nothing 
in tame, which he did not decree from all eternity. These 
_ are the dictates of common sense, as well as of divine re- 

_ velation. Let not, therefore, Dr. Millar, nor Dr. Graves, 
_ hor Dr. Bruce, nor the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor 
‘—let no Arminian, Socinian, nor Arian, stigmatize the 
decree of reprobation as irrespective. It was no more ir- 
respective, than the condemnation of the wicked will be at 
_ the judgment of the great day. The one is the exact coun- 
terpart of the other. 

Bishop Mant represents Calvinists as maintaining that no 
_ possibility whatever is allowed the reprobate of escaping 
theirdoom. Is this representation true ?—J¢t is not.—No 
natural impossibility stands in the way of the salvation of 
the reprobate. No impossibility stands in their way, but 

19* . 


wae ? ; 


that which aggravates their guilt ; I mean that moral im- 
possibility, which arises from their own hatred and enmity. 
None will ever be able to say, «I was willing to accept of 
‘« Jesus as a Saviour, and to walk in his commandments 
‘‘ and ordinances blameless, but the decree of reprobation 
‘* prevented me.” is 


The heaviest part of the charge of Dr. Graves and Bi- 


~shop Mant is—that, according to the Calvinistic system, 
God prepares the reprobate for damnation. Is this charge 
just ’—J¢ is not.—Calvinists. maintain that God prepares 
the elect for happiness’; but, that the reprobate, by their 
sins, prepare themselves for misery. (Rom. ix. 22, 23,) 
“« What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his 
‘** power known, endured with much long-suffering the ves- 
‘* sels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might 
‘¢ make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of 
‘¢ mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.’? In 
this remarkable passage it is asserted, that God prepares 
the vessels of mercy for glory ; but it is not said, that God 
fits or prepares the vessels of wrath for destruction. It is 
said, indeed, that they are fitted; but it is not said that God 
fits them. They are fitted not by God; but by their own 
sins.* | | es 

It may be objected, however, that these very sins were 
foreordained, and could not be avoided.—Answer. The 
origin of evil is the most abstruse and difficult subject to 
~ which the human mind has ever been directed. That God 


* In’a long continued strain of invective the Lord Bishop of Down 
and Connor pours contempt on the Calvinistic system, by representing 
it as inconsistent with mildness and clemency. For this purpose he 
plunges into politics, and charges the Scotch Covenanters with selling 
their king, andthe English Calvinists with beheading him. Now, were 
his Lordship able to prove that the Scotch Covenanters sold king 
Charles I—which I am convinced he will never be able to do—and 
that he was afterwards beheaded by the English Calvinists—which we 
do not deny—what follows ? Does it follow, that the Calvinists of that 


age were more ferocious, than Arminians under the subsequent reigns 


of Charles If and James VII? Does his Lordship mean to tell us 
now, in the nineteenth century, that there was more cruelty in be- 
heading an arbitrary tyrannical despot, who, in violation of the Bri- 
tish constitution, was trampling under his feet the liberties, of his sub- 
jects, than in deluging with the best blood of her citizens a wholenation 
for twenty-eight years 2? Surely his Lordship’s prudence had com- 
pletely forsaken him, when he adverted at all to the transactions of 
‘those times. WOR Te pay LVTCIERE GsIG 


223° 
is not the author of sin, Calvinists as well as Arminians and 
others strenuously maintain.—The contrary imputation they 
repel with abhorrence.—They maintain that all good comes 
from God, and that all evil comes from the creature. This, 
however, they do not consider inconsistent. with the doc- 
trine—<‘ That God has foreordained whateverlcomes to pass”’ 
—sinful actions not excepted. The decree that sin should, 
by divine permission, have a place among the works of God, 

does not make God the author of sin ; for sin’s introduc- 
tion is not to be ascribed to any positive influence of the - 
Deity. That God permits sin, all must acknowledge ; for 
if he did not permit it, it could not exist. Now, if he 
permits it, he must wil/ to permit it ; he must decree to per- 
mit it. God can do nothing without a previous act of hig 
own will, or, in other words, without a previous decree. 
That God decreed to permit sin, is a position which admits 
of no rational contradiction. It is also demonstrably evi- 
dent, that if God’s permitting sin does not make him the 
author of sin, neither is he made the author of sin by de- 
creeing to permit it. If there be no harm in doing a thing, 
there can be no harm in decreeing to do it. 

‘That God: from all eternity decreed, that sin, by divine 

permission, should have a place among his works, I prove 
by the following arguments :— 

1. My first argument is drawn from the appointment of 
Jesus as a Saviour. That God determined tosend his Son 
into the world to save sinners, none will deny : and, as 
there are no new determinations in the divine mind, he must 
have so determined from all eternity. Now, if God from 
all eternity determined or decreed to send his Son into the 
world to save his people from their sins, he must have de- 
creed from all eternity, that those sins, by divine permis- 
sion, should have a place among his works—it must have 
been from all eternity certain that they would have sucha 
place: for if it were possible that those sins might never 
___ be committed, then it was possible that God might decree 
to send his Son in vain! ae 

_ 2, My second argument is drawn from the appointment 
_ of a general judgment, (Acts, xvii. 31,) «* Because he 
~ “hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world 

*¢ in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained.”? 
Now if God on this day will condemn the wicked, he must 
will or determine to condemn them ; for he can do nothing 
without previously willing or determining to do it: and as 


224 


there can be no new purposes or determinations in the di- 
vine mind, God must have determined or decreed from all 
eternity to condemn the wicked. And, still farther ; if 
God decreed from all eternity to condemn the wicked for 
their sins, it must have been certain from all eternity that 
those sins would be committed. If it were possible* that 
the persons whom God from all eternity decreed to con- 
demn and punish might never sin ; thenit was possible that 
God might condemn and punish the innocent. It. is there- 
fore, demonstrably evident, from the divine procedure at 
the general judgment, that God from all eternity decreed 
that sin, through divine permission, should have a place 
among his works. Should any allege, that neither the de- 
cree that Jesus Christ should come into the world to save 
sinners, nor the decree that at the judgment of the great 
day he should condemn and punish sintiers—should any al- 
lege that neither of these decrees proves that the futurition 
of sin was decreed, but only that the futurition of sin was 
certain, I shall answer their objection in 

3. My THIRD ARGUMENT, whichis drawn from the fore- 
knowledge of God.—The foreknowledge of God proves his 
decrees. It proves, that God foreordained whatever comes 
to pass, sinful actions not excepted.—If God from all eter- 
nity foresaw all events, it was from all eternity certain that 
those events would occur. For example; if God from all 
eternity foreknew that Dr. B. would write a book against 
the plenary inspiration of his word, the Divinity and Atone- 
ment of his Son, the Supreme Deity of his Spirit, de. then 
it was certain from all eternity that Dr. B. would write that 
book. If it was possible that Dr. B. might never write 
that book, though God foreknew that he would write it, 
then it was possible for the Deity to be mistaken and disap- 
pointed! Every person must see, that it is impossible for 
the Deity to know that a thing exists, if it does not really 
and certainly exist. Equally impossible is it to foreknow 
that a thing will exist, if its future existence is not certain. 
As knowledge presupposes the certain present existence of 
things known, so foreknowledge presupposes the certamm 
future existence of things foreknown. If God, therefore, 


oo 


* The reader will still bear in mind, that I do not speak of an abso- 
lute or natural possibility or impossibility.—I mention this to prevent 
all misunderstanding or cavilling. | 


Boe kim 


from all eternity foresaw whatever comes to pass, the future 
existence of every thing that comes to pass was from all 
eternity certain. 
To say that, God foresaw any thing as future which yet 
never come to pass, is an evident contradiction. It is to 
say that God foresaw it, and yet did not foresee it: for that 
which never comes to pass could never be the object either 
of sight, or foresight—of knowledge, or foreknowledge. 
Arminians sometimes labour hard to prove, that foreknow- 
ledge could have no influence on future actions ; but they 
labour in vain: they labour to prove what we do not deny. 
We do not say, that foreknowledge renders future events 
certain ; but we contend, that it pre-supposes their cer- 
tainty. Foreknowledge does not constitute, but it proves 
the certainty of future events. This is what we assert.* 
Now, if all things that come to pass were from all eter- 
nity certain, what rendered them certain? To bring things 
out of a state of mere possibility of existence into a state 
_of certain futurition, is an effect; and every effect must 
have a cause. In this case, what was the cause? The 
cause miust have either been the things themselves, or the 
decree of the Deity. It could not be the things themselves 
that rendered their own future existence certain ; for nothing 
can produce an effect before it exists: it follows then, by 
_‘-mecessary consequence, that it was the will or decree of the 
_ Deity.—Thus, the doctrine of divine decrees, notwithstand- 
_. ing the contempt with which it is loaded, appears to me 
_ eapable of the strictest demonstration. ‘The steps are ex- 
_ tremely simple, God from all eternity foreknew all things 
that come to pass ; therefore, all those things were from all 
eternity certain. Again: What rendered the future exis- 
_ tence of those things certain? Was it the will of God—or 
_ was it the things themselves ?—It must have been either 
; the one or the other of these causes. It could not be the 


nS ae = eth. 


* Dr. Dwight (Theol. p. 199) says, ‘ Foreknowledge renders the fu- 
*¢ ture existence of that which is forekuown certain; ‘therefore the ac= 
. tions of the agent supposed are all rendered cerlwin and will of courss 
% exist.” And again (p. 200), ** God’s foreknowledge of voluntary ac- 
tions does in no respect Jessen or affect their freedom, although it 
*¢ renders their future existence absolutely certain.”  Aliquando dor= 
“ mitat bonus Homerus.’”—The Doctor here has expressed himself quite 
inadvertently and inconsistently with what he has elsewhere maintain= 
ed. He elsewhere maintains, that foreknowledge can have no influence 
whatever on the nature of actions. 


296 


things themselves ; for no cause can produce an effect be- 
fore it exists. It must therefore have been the will of the 
Deity—or, in other words—the divine decree.—( See Ed- 
wards’ Remarks, ra) Cia 
Doctor Adam Clarke maintains that there is, strictly 
speaking, no foreknowledge nor afterknowledge with the 
Deity—that his knowledge is all present knowledge—that, 
past, present, and future, are with the Deity one eternal now. 
To this opinion Archbishop Tillotson, one of the ablest de- 
fenders of the Arminian system, was quite opposed. He 
poured upon it the utmost contempt. To me, the opinion 
appears quite rational.—I agree with the Doctor, rather 
than with the Archbishop. I am is one of the names of the 
Deity ; and our Saviour says, not before Abraham was, I 
was, but, Before Abraham was, I am. It appears to me, 
that past, present, and future, are all equally present with 
the Deity. With him, past knowledge, and present know- 
ledge, and future knowledge, are all the same. I therefore 
perfectly agree with Dr, Clarke, Mr. Drew and others, in 
this view of the knowledge of God.—It is in my mind both 
more scriptural and more philosophical than that of the 
learned Prelate. At the same time, i perfectly agree with 
the Archbishop, in wondering that men should “ call this 
‘explaining things.’’ It gives no explanation at all of the 
Arminian difficulty. On the contrary, it exibits the diffi- 
culty in a more striking point of light. It renders the con- 
tradiction of foreseeing contingencies more apparent. Does 
not God’s knowledge of past events prove the certainty. of 
those events ?—does not his knowledge of present events 
prove the certainty of those events ?—On the same princi- 
ple, does not his knowledge of future events prove the cer- 
tainty of those events? If, with the Deity, foreknowledge, 
present knowledge, and after knowledge, are all the same, 
then they all equally presuppose and prove the certainty 
of their object.— As nothing can be otherwise than God sees 
it to be; so nothing can be otherwise than he foresees it. 
If, with the Deity, foreknowledge and present knowledge 
are the same, then what is true of present knowledge is also 
true of foreknowledge ; but present knowledge presupposes 
andj proves the certainty of the thing known; and, there- 
fore foreknowledge must also presuppose and prove the 
certainty of the. thing foreknown. No Arminian in the 
world can possibly refute this reasoning, nor evade the force 


+ Naa 


x 


of it, withont trampling under his feet the very first princi- 
ples of argumentation. | 

__Divines of the first-rate learning and talents are ‘sensible 
of this: they decline the controversy, and resolve the whole 
into faith.—Socinians, finding that they must either give up 
the contingency of future events or the foreknowledge of 
God, adopted the desperate\alternative of making a sacri- 
fice of this divine attribute.—Dr. A. Clarke, following their 
steps, has chosen to give up the omniscience of Deity rather 
than his Arminian tenets. Dr. Millar and Doctor Graves, 
with a modesty more becoming Christian Divines, confess 
the weakness of their own faculties, and, finding demon- 
stration against them, endeavour to make their escape by 
taking refuge in faith. Arminian writers of an inferior class, 
with less reason but more effrontery, pertinaciously adhere 
to their principles, not only in the face of demonstration, 
but in contempt and defiance of those self-evident truths— 
those axioms on which demonstration is founded.* 


i sae San 9mm ar rg erate ee ee ee PT SOT Ore TU OETA ed PRS 


* From my Defence of Creeds and Confessions, Mr. M‘Afee quotes the 
following words: * Every person inust see, that it is impossible for the 
‘* Deity to know that a thing exists, if it does not really and certainly 
‘Sexist. Equally impossible is it to forekuow that a thing will exist, if 
‘its future existence is not certain.” On this quotation he makes the 
following remark : *“‘ The first proposition in this quotation is evidently 
*$ true 3 but the latter appears to me, not only to be erroneous, but con- 
“trary to that timidity and modesty which should accompany all our 
‘* disquisitions concerning the unsearchable God.”—Now, if the know- 
ledge and foreknowledge of the Deity are the same, is it not a self-evi- 
dent truth—is it not an axiom—that what is true of the knowledge of 
God, must be also true of his Soreknowledge? Yet the timid and 
modest Mr. M‘Afee, in defiance of this axiom, modestly affirms of the 
divine knowledge, what he denies of the foreknowledge of Deity !—Such 
is that champion of Arminianism whom Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial 
Magazine, dignifies with the epithet of an “ able antagonist.” If con-— 
tinuitig to reason after one is defeated—if continuing to argue in the 
face, not only of demonstration, but of axioms—if this constitutes an. 
adle antagonist, Mr. M‘Afee has certainly strong claims to that title. 

“In reasoning, too, the parson owned his skill; 
‘For, even though vanquished, he could argue still.” > 

But will the reader believe that this same “able antagonist,” who, - 
even in the face of self-evident truths, reasons against the certainty of 
future events, has, in the very sanie pamphlet, fully admitted that cer- 


tainty 2?“ The espousers of liberty are well aware of an objection 


“urged against their scheme by the advocates for necessity and 
“Calvinism. Why (it is triumphantly asked,) is there so much 
“stress laid upon the freedom of the will? Are not the good and evil 
* actions the same, in point of certainty, as if they had been all de- 
“creed? and will not the number of the saved and lost be as definite 


Bi. 


4, With regard to whatever comes to pass, God must 
either be willing that it should come to pass, or unwilling. 
If he is unwilling that it should come to pass, and yet it 
does come to pass, then his will is crossed, and he is unhappy. 


‘6 at the last, according to the doctrine of liberty, as according to that 
“ of necessity? Granting the certainty of the actions and the definite- 
‘¢ ness of the numbers spoken of, we only say that things are just as they 
“‘ really are.—Again—The number is definite by that certainty which 
% always accompanies contingent actions.” He afterwards admits, 
that the number of the saved would be actually as great, and finally 
certain, as if Deity had passed Calvinistic decrees concerning them. 
Thus, it appears, that this able antagonist gives up the whole contro- 
versy, and surrenders to the Calvinists at discretion. If the certainty 
of an event does not destroy liberty,how could that liberty be destroyed 
by the decree of God, which rendered the event certain? If appren- 
ticeship does not forfeit the freedom of a corporation town, no man can 
forfeit that freedom by being bound an apprentice. If the apprentice- 
ship itself cannot deprive him of his freedom, the binding him an ap- 
prentice—or that act by which he was bownd—cannot deprive him of it: 
so, in like manner, if certainty cannot destroy liberty, the decree of 
God constituting that certainty cannot destroy it. By admitting cer- 
tainty of event, Mr. M‘Afee has given up the Arminian cause. All 
the necessity we plead for is.a necessity consisting in certainty of event. 
A natural necessity, a universal necessity, a necessity of compulsion, 
coaction, or constraint, is unjustly and injuriously charged on the Cal- 
vinistic system by its ignorant or prejudiced opponents. Mr. M‘Aiee 
quotes President Edwards, strongly disclaiming, and decidedly con- 
demning the doctrine of a universal necessity: aud yet this “ able 
“ antagonist,” with his characteristic timidity and regard for truth, 
modestly charges Edwards, and Calvinists in general, with holding 
that same universal necessity ! Absurdly confounding the laws of mind 
with those of matter, he even attempts by a diagram to demonstrate the 
absurdity of the Calvinistic system! Had I considered Mr. M‘Afee’s 
pamphlet worthy of an answer, my motto would have been, “ Thou 
*« shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” , 
Mr. M‘Afee admits that the number of the saved and the lost * is 
‘ definite by that certainty which always accompanies contingent 
6 events—that is to say—the certainty which accompanies uncertain 
events! Who can doubt that such a writer is an ‘* able antagonist ??” 
Again—Mr. M‘Afee declares (p. 24,) that, as a compensation for - 
that death incurred by the fall, a decree is passed, which determines | 
the resurrection of every man; and that God immutably purposed to 
raise all men from the dead. He also admits, that the number of the 
‘saved and the lost is as definite as if fixed by a Calvinistic decree. 
Take these doctrines in connexion, and the ainount of them is, That 
God has passed a decree, and. immutably purposed, to raise to the re- 
surrection of damnation a definite number of the human family—and 
all this as a compensation for that death which they incurred by the 
fall! By such mild and sensible doctrine, our ** able antagonist” pro- 
poses to mend Calvinistic decrees! How appropriate the modest title 
of his pamphlet, ‘ 4 Rational and Scriptural Investigation !” ; 


Ke 


® 


» 


Sie. 


229 


, 


No man can rationally maintain that God is unwilling that 
sin should have a place in his works. If he maintains this, 
he must run into the gross absurdity of maintaining, that 


2 77RD I FAL SSB oe eS cee AN SUNN 


Mr. M‘Afee, in his preface, informs us—not that his design was to 
answer the arguments of his opponent ; no, this might be troublesome; 
but he informs us—that his plan was “ to advance a system as forcibly 
“and argumentatively as possible, which, if true, necessarily proves 
“that of the Rev. Gentleman he Opposes to be false.’—Now, one 
would suppose that this “ able antagonist” would grant his opponent 
the same privilege. One would think, that, according to the law laid 
down by Mr. M‘Afee, the Calvinist, by proving his own system true, 
at the same time proves Mr. M‘Afee’s to be false. But—no such thing. 
This ‘* able antagonist” explains the laws of war quite differently. 
Page 30,he states them thus: ¢ Before it can be proved, Sir, that we 
sinned in Adam as a federal head, from the words now in question, 
‘* the absurdity of the above conclusions must be clearly shown, and the 
* various arguments advanced throughout. these epistles fairly and 
“ rationally answered.” So then, Arminians arenot bound to answer 
the arguments of Calvinists ; but Calvinists are tndispensably obliged 
to auswer all the arguments of Arminians ! The Arminian has only 
to prove his own system true, in order to prove Calvinism false but 
the Calvinist must prove Arminianism false before he can prove his 
Own system drue / ‘ 

Such is the logic of Mr. M‘Afee; and the editor of the Imperial 
Magazine assures us, that Mr. M‘Afee is *“* an able antagonist.” 

In this miscellaneous note, I should have taken some notice of the 
efforts of Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine, to reconcile con- 
‘tingency with foreknowledge. Of metaphysics, when used on the Ar- 
minian side of the controversy, he appears very fond—and is himself 
no contemptible metaphysician—but when used by Calvinists, he does 
not seem to like them at all. He discovers a particular dislike to the 
metaphysical ‘‘ fastnesses,” from which President Edwards and some of 
his successors cannot easily be dislodged. Could Mr. Drew raise as 
many Arminian troops as would storm those fastnesses, I am convinced 
he would do an essential! service to the Arminian cause. For his own 
part, he uses every effort in his power; but, in my humble Opinion, 
without success. In attempting to reconcile the contingency of human 


~ actions with divine foreknowledge, he soars so high in the regions of 


metaphysics, that, to my feeble sight, he becomes quite invisible. I 
find it impossible, and, lam happy to say, unnecessary to follow him 
in his flight—I see him when he rises, and recognise him when he de- 
scends. He represents the Deity—I write from recollection—as pene- 
trating duration, and looking back, as it were, at contingent events, 
looking at them as if they were past.—He seems, however, strangely to 
forget, that his seeing those events. proves their certainty—no matter 
whether he looks backward at them, or forward at them: If he sees them 
af all, their existence must be certain, and Arminian contingency must 
be overthrown! An Arminian writer in the Imperial Magazine—a 
writer of very respectable talents, Mr. Tucker, of Belfast, has aban- 
doned the absurd doctrine of contingency. I am decidedly of the 
Opinion, that Dr. Clarke, Mr. Drew, and all Arminians whatever, would 
discover their wisdom by imitating his example. 


230 


sin has forced its way into the works of God in opposition 
to the divine will—in defiance of the Divine Being! He 
must maintain, that the will of the Deity is crossed in mil- 
lions of millions of instances, and that the ever-blessed God, © 
instead of being the most happy, is, in reality, the most 
miserable being in the universe. Now, if God be not un- 
willing that sin should have a place among his works, he 
must be willing ; and if he is willing, then he decrees it ; 
for with God, to will and to decree are the same thing. 

Dr. Bruce, in common with all Socinians, Arminains, 
and Arians, ridicules the distinction between the secret and 
revealed will of God, or his will of decree and hig will of 
command. He writes thus: (p. 174) ‘« Nor do the most 
‘© learned advocates for this doctrine shrink from these ab- 
“¢ surd and blasphemous consequences : for thus they write : 
«< The Lord sometimes orders a thing to be done by a man ; 
«< and yet by his secret will does not wish that it should be 
‘* done by him :” for God has a secret and revealed will. 
«< It does not follow because he commands all men to be-, 
_ & lieve in Christ, that he wills them to do so. But though 
‘‘ we cannot understand how God can be unwilling that 
‘« his commands should be executed, yet we ought not to 
‘«< deny it. ‘Though God calls the wicked to repentance, 
«¢ he does not wish them to besaved. Though he declares, 
«¢ that he wishes the wicked or reprobate to believe, he 
« does not actually wish it. God does not always mean 
‘< what he says that he means; and yet is not guilty of hy- 
‘¢ pocrisy.’” So that, according to these Divines, God prac- 
‘© tiges mental reservation, when he wills that ‘‘ all men 
.« should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” 
«© It is to be feared, that some mercenary or fanatical de- 
‘© claimers even labour to aggravate these horrible repre- 
‘* sentations. : 

Thus Dr. B., in his usual manner, endeavours to bring 
Calvinism into contempt, by charging upon it the most 
foolish things said by its advocates. I must therefore again 
remind my readers, that the foolish and absurd things said 
by Calvinists are not Calvinism.—The nonsensical, contra- 
dictory, and blasphemous expression of Piscator—if ever 
he uttered them, which I very much doubt—Calvinists hold 
in sovereign contempt. Nor do I believe the most merce- 
nary or fanatical declaimer living would approve, much less 
agorayate, such horrible representations. — A little more of 
that charity which thinketh no evil would have a great ten- 


\ 


231 , 
dency to allay the Doctor’s fears on such subjects.—Dr. B. 
and other writers may pour contempt on the distinction \ 
between God’s will of decree and his will of command ; 
but, they will never be able to prove it groundless. They 
cannot deny, as I have already shown, that it is the will of 
God, that sin should have a place among his works. The 
existence of sin is not contrary to his decretive or providen- 
tial will, otherwise there could be no sin at all; and yet all 
will grant, that itis contrary to his preceptive will—his will 
of command. The distinction, therefore, between the se- 
cret and revealed will of God—or rather between his will of 
decree and his will of command, is capable not only of proof, 
but of demonstration. The distinction is not only founded 
in reason, but is taught with the clearest evidence in the 
sacred volume. ‘Though we cannot understand’’—sgays 
‘Trigland as cited by the Doctor—< Though we cannot 
‘* understand, how God can be unwilling that his commands 
‘« should be executed ; yet we ought not:to deny it.”? Dr. 
B. denies it ; but if he does, he must also deny the word of 
God. Godcommanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, 
and yet he was: unwilling his command should be executed. 
—Will the Doctor deny this? God decreed that Isaac 
should not be sacrificed ; and yet he commanded that he 
should be sacrificed. Will the Dr. deny this ?—Let Dr. B. 
say—let all the opponents of Calvinism say—Is not this a 
decisive instance of the distinction between God’s will of 
decree and will of command? his providential and precep- ~ 
tive will? Again—God commanded Pharaoh to let Israel 
go, and yet hardened his heart so that he should not let 
_ them go. Here, again, the distinction between God’s will 
_ of command and his will of decree is as clear as noon day. 
Another striking instance of this important distinction is 
recorded in 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12, “Thus sayeth the Lord, 


eer behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own’ 


‘‘ house, and I will take thy. wives before thine eyes, and 
*« give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall tie with thy 
‘* wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly : 
* but I will do this before all Israel, and before the sun.” 
Will any person deny, that it was the decretive or providen- 
tial will of God, that David’s adultery and murder should 
be punished by the subsequent incest of his unnatural son 
Absalom? And will any person deny, that Absalom’s in- 
cest was contrary to God's preceptive will? Surely not. 
Once more: The selling of Joseph into Egypt was sin- 


s 


232 f 


ful. It was contrary to the preceptive will of God; and yet 
it was quite agreeable to his providential will, or his will of 
decree. ‘It was not you that sent me hither,”’ says Joseph, 
‘‘ but God. Ye thought evil against me; but God meant 
“it unto good.’’—In like manner, the crucifixion of the 
Redeemer, though contrary to the revealed will of God, and 
highly criminal, was nevertheless agreeable to his will of 
decree. It was bythe ‘+ determinate counsel and foreknow- 
“* ledge of God that he was taken, and by wicked hands cru- 
« cified and slain.”? All the indignities and cruelties of 
the Jews were nothing more than God’s “‘ hand and counsel 
*¢ determined before to be done.’’. ‘* Those things, which God 
«« before had showed by the mouth of his prophets that Christ 
«¢ should suffer, he so fulfilled.” edy (ees 
_ The last instance I shall quote—for the instances are al- 
most innumerable—is Rev. xvii. 17, ‘‘ For God hath put in 
‘* their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree and give their 
’*¢ kingdom unto the beasts, until the word of Ged shall be 
‘« fulfilled.”? Will Dr. B. deny—will any opponent of Cal- 
vinism deny, that for the ten kings to give their kingdom 
to the beasts was contrary to the revealed will of God ? 
or, will any deny that it was agreeable to his will of decree ? 
They fulfilled his will.— What will ? not his preceptive will 
surely. It must have been his will of decree or purpose. 
If my learned antagonists, or any other opponents of the 
Calvinistic system, think they can explain the above-cited 
‘passages, without admitting a distinction between God’s 
will of decree and his will of command; let them try it. 
Let them show, if they can, that the arguments drawn, first 
from reason and then from Scripiure, are inconclusive :. but 
let them not think to run down the distinction by the quota- 
tion of a few nonsensical sayings—sayings which all Cal- 
vinists, as well as Socinians, Arminians, and Arians con- 
demn. | | 
Our opponents allege, that this distinction which we 
make between God’s will of command and will of decree, 
represents the Deity as possessed of two contradictory 
wills. In answer to this objection, I would observe, that 
if the distinction is a matter of fact—as | have proved it 
to be—my. opponents are as much bound to reconcile any 
apparent contradiction as J am. My object, however, be- 
ing, not so much to silence an adversary, as to mvestigate 
truth, I would observe—That God’s will of command and 
will of decree are not to be regarded as two different and 


233 x a ; - aa 
opposite wills ; i bait as the same will operating differently 3 
on different objects. —An apothecary permits poison to en- 
ter his shop—not as poison—not for the purpose of destroy- 
ing his fellow-men—but he permits its entrance, that, being 
compounded with other ingredients, it may eventually be- 
come a powerful medicine. If an apothecary, without any 
contradiction, may prohibit poison as poison, and yet pre- 
scribe it as a medicine ; may not the Deity, without any 
contradiction, prohibit sin as sin, and yet. permit it, and 
decree that through his permission it shall have a place in 
his works, for the greater manifestation of his own glory, 
and the greater happiness of the universe at large ?— 
<¢ There is no inconsistency or contrariety,’’ says President 

«Edwards, ‘‘ between the preceptive and decretive will of 
‘God. It is very consistent to suppose that God may 
‘« hate the thing itself, and yet will that it should come to 
“pass. Yea, Ido not fear to assert that the thing itself 
*“‘“ may be contrary to God’s will, and yet that it may be. 
** agreeable to his will that it should come to pass ; because 
** his will in the one case has not the same object with his 
“‘ will in the other case. ‘To suppose God to have con- 
*‘ trary wills towards the same object is a contradiction ; 
*‘ but it is not so to suppose him to have contrary wills 
* about different objects. The thing itself—and that the 
«« thing should come to pass—are different, as is evident ; be- 
*¢ cause it is possible that the one may be good and the other 
‘‘may be evil. The thing itself may be evil, and yet it 
*¢ may be a good thing that it should come to pass. It may 
pew good. thing that an evil thing should come to pass : 
“« and oftentimes it most certainly and undeniably is so, and 
‘* proves so.’? Agreeably to these remarks, we may ob- 
serve, that the crucifixion of Christ was, in itself, an evil 
thing—one of the worst things that ever oceurred ; and 
yet the occurrence of that event was the greatest blessing 
ever conferred on our apostate family. That ‘‘ every sin 
‘«-has in it something of the good work of God,’ is one of 
those foolish sayings brought forward by our author to 
blacken Calvinism—a saying which all Calvinists abhor. 

_ I would nevertheless say, without the fear of rational centra- 
diction, That not one sin was ever permitted to enter the 

works of God, but will ultimately be overruled to the promo- 
tion of universal good. (Psal. Ixxvi. 10) « Surely the 

* wrath of man shall praise thee ; the remainder of wrath 
“ shalt thou restrain.” (Rom. viii. 28) “ And we know 

20* 


234 


** that all things work together for good to them that love 
‘« God.” Had sin never entered, God’s love in sending 
his son—the love of Jesus in dying for sinners—or the love 
of the Holy Ghost in applying the work of redemption, 
could never have been displayed. The grace of God in 
pardoning the guilty, and his mercy in saving the miserable, 
could never have been manifested.. Meckness, patience, 
forgiveness of injuries, and other Christian virtues, could 
never have been exercised. Men would never have been 
exalted to so high a state of dignity and glory, nor angels to 
such a state of felicity. Though sin, therefore, as sin, be 
contrary to the will of God, it 1s not contrary to the will of 
his decree, to permit so much sin to enter his works, as 


under his infinitely wise providence shall ultimately termi-. 


nate in the more illustrious display of all his perfections, 
and the greater felicity of the universe at large.* Nor do 
we make God the author of sin by maintaining that he de- 
creed to permit sin, and that by such permission sin should 
have a place among his works. ‘The influence of the Deity 
with regard to sin, is very different from that which he em- 
ploys in the production of holiness. The production of 
holiness requires the positive influence of the Deity, and 
therefore he is properly the auwthor-of holiness ; but the in- 
troduction of sin requires no such influence, and therefore 
the Deity is not the author of sin. 'To produce light re- 
quires positive influence; but no such influence is neces- 
sary to the production of darkness. The sun, by the pour- 
ing forth of his rays, has a positive influence in the produc- 
tion of light ; but all that is necessary to the production of 
darkness (if I may use the expression, ) is the withdrawing 
of those rays. When the sun withdraws his rays, darkness 
ensues; but shall we therefore say, that the sun is the au- 
thor of darkness? Surely not. Equally absurd would it 
be to charge God with being the author of sin, because, on 
withholding that divine influence which would have pre- 


* “If any man,” says Bishop Davenant, “ shall go about to set 
“ men’s will at liberty, and to tie up short the decreeing and determin- 


‘Sing will of God, as if this had not the determining stroke amongst - 


‘all possible evil actions and events which shall ivfallibly be, and 
‘¢ which shall,infallibly not be, he may avoid the suspicion of Stoicism 
*© or Manicheism, but he can hardly avoid .the suspicion of Atheism. 
“‘ For the greater number of men’s actions being wicked and evil, if 
“6 these come into act without God’s determinate counsel and decree, 
“¢ human affairs are more over-ruled by man’s will than by God’s.” 


Se Pee eee ee rie 8 
ws age 


235 


vented it, sin enters the works of God. Again: The sun 
thaws snow and ice by the influence of his heat ; but the 
production of snow or ice requires no such positive influ- 
ence. When the sun withdraws his rays, snow and ice en- 
sue; but would any one say that the sun is the author of 
snow or ice? Surely not. In like manner, when God is 
said to harden mens’ hearts, no positive influence is in- 
tended. All that is necessary to produce the effect is— 
to give men up to the hardness of their own hearts, by 
withholding that grace which would otherwise mollify 
them.  (Psal. Ixxxi. 12,) “So J gave them up unto 
‘‘ their own hearts’ lusts, and they walked in their own 
‘* counsels.”’ 

The most formidable objection brought against Calvi- 
nistic decrees is, that they are inconsistent with liberty or 
free agency. In reply to this objection, I would observe, 
that there is no greater difficulty in reconciling the decrees 
of God with the free agency of man, than there is in re- 

_conciling the foreknowledge of God with the same free 
agency. Whenever the Arminian or the Arian solves the 
latter difficulty, we will solve the former. Archbishop 
Tillotson, Doctor Millar, Doctor Graves, and all the ablest 
Opponents of Calvinism, confess themselves unable to re-. 
concile the foreknowledge of God with the freedom of 
humam actions, and plead, as an apology, the weakness of 
their faculties. ; 

Now, if our opponents, Arminians, Socinians, and Arians, 
are unable to reconcile the foreknowledge of God with the 
free agency of man—Why do they call upon us to recon- 
cile the decrees of God with the same free agency? If the 
doctrine of the divine decrees is clearly taught in the sacred 
volume, and can be demonstrated even by reason—and if 
the free agency of man is also taught both by experience | 
and Scripture—may we not safely conclude, that those doc- 
trines are not inconsistent, though, from the limited nature 
of our faculties, we should he unable to reconcile them ?— 
This is surely as good a solution of the difficulty in our 
case, as the Arminians have given in theirs. Nay, I main- 
tain that thesolution is infinitely better. For no solution:can 


€ver reconcile a contradiction. We can demonstrate, and 
We have demonstrated, that it implies a contradiction to 


Maintain, that God can foresee future contingent actions or 
vents. In vain, therefore, do Arminian and Arian divines 
plead the weakness of their faculties. The faculties of an 


236 


angel could not reconcile a contradiction. If Arminian 
and Arian Doctors he permitted, in the face of reason and 
demonstration, to resolve into faith the doctrine of the Divine 
foreknowledge of contingent events, why may not the Doctors 
of the fchurch of Rome be also permitted to resolve into 
faith the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation? No doc- 
trine can possibly be true which contradicts either our 
senses, or our reason. I grant, indeed, that doctrines may 
be above our reason, and then we may resolve them into 
faith ; but if they are really self-contradictory ; and if the 
contradiction can be demonstrated; they cannot be the 
doctrines of Divine Revelation. Our opponents, indeed, 
consider Calvinistic decrees as unreasonable—as inconsis- 
tent with the free agency of man; but have they ever been 
able to demonstrate a contradiction? They have not. The 
great question between Calvinists and their opponents is 
this—Can God create free agents, and govern free agenis, 
and have all his ends, designs, and purposes respecting the 
final destination of these agents accomplished without in- 
fringing their liberty or free agency? We say he can, and 
our opponents say he can not. I believe that my Maker 
created me a free and accountable agent—I believe that he 
had a particular design to accomplish by me—and I firmly 
believe, that he can and will accomplish that design, with- 
out doing me the slightest injustice, or infringing in the 
least my liberty or free agency. Let the opponents of Calvi-— 
nism demonstrate, if they can, that this creed involves a con- 
tradiction. This is a task they have never yet been able to ac- 

complish, and I am convinced they never will. I now say 
again, that if we can demonstrate by reason, and prove 
from Scripture, the doctrine of divine decrees, and also 
the doctrine of the free agency of mar, we may safely con- . 
clude, that those doctrines are perfectly consistent, though, 
from the weakness of our faculties, we may feel unable to 
reconcile them. On this ground we might safely take our 
stand ; but if we could proceed a little farther in this diffi- _ 
cult subject ; and if we could actually reconcile those doc- 

trines; an object of great magnitude would be obtained. 
T'o accomplish this object has long been a problem in divi- 
nity. If I am not much mistaken, Doctor Dwight, of 
America, has ultimately succeeded. I shall give the solu- 
tion in his own words: (p. 199.) ‘1 will suppose once 
more a voluntary agent, either self-existent or existing 
* casually, possessing powers of understanding similar in 


Fa 


> eon) ke eee, er are 
PR ge eat ne Sa 


ial, ea 


“eae 
¥. 


REN 


i Sa rr 


237 


‘‘ their extent to those of angels or of men; and, at the 
« same time, free, in the highest sense annexed to that term. 
‘«¢ Let him be also supposed to be known and comprehend- 
‘© ed by God in the same perfect manner in which any 


- angel or man is known by him ; so that God can foresee 


‘¢ with an omniscient survey and absolute certainty, all his’ 
‘: future actions. At the same time let it be supposed, that 
‘* God exercises over him no government or influence what- 
“ever. This being will undoubtedly be acknowledged to 
‘* be free, even by those who make this objection ; because 
‘* he was neither brought into existence by the will of God, 
‘‘ nor is controlled nor influenced in any manner whatever 


** by any will beside his own. Let me further suppose, 


‘‘ what, as it must be granted, cannot lessen or affect his 
** freedom, that, all his actions, thus foreseen, are agree- 
‘* able to the divine pleasure. Now, let me ask, whether 
‘‘ the divine omniscience could not contrive, and the divine 
“power create, a being exactly resembling this which I 
“‘ have here supposed, in every respect; except that he 
““ was not self-existent, nor casually existent; and so per- 
“fect a copy, that he would differ from this supposed being 
“numerically only ; would possess the same attributes; be 
‘Sin the same circumstances; and perform both in sub- 


““* stance and mode exactly the same actions. Were this 


** supposed being, for example, to be placed by God in his 
“ kingdom, in certain circumstances, and acting a certain 
‘ part in the system; which was exactly agreeable to the 
*« divine pleasure; would not the created being who was 
‘* his perfect counterpart, if substituted in his place, perform 
‘+ precisely the same actions, with the same faculties» and 
*‘ the same freedom? The only difference between them 
‘‘ would be, that he who was casually existent, would per- 
‘‘ form these actions in consequence of possessing such 
‘* and such attributes, without having been created for this 
*‘ purpose ; while the other would perform them in conse- 
“‘ quence of having been thus created with the very same 
‘‘ attributes,’’ Such is Dr. Dwight’s solution of the diffi- 
culty—a solution which, to me at least, appears completely 
satisfactory. _ ; i 

_ Our opponents cannot deny that the Scriptures teach the 
doctrine of election, but they either maintain, that it is 


founded on foreseen faith and good works, or they contend 


that it is not particular or personal. They maintain that 
the Scriptural election is only a national election, or an 


238 


election to the enjoyment of the external privileges of the — 
Christian church. Against a personal or particular elec- 
tion, they not only put into a state of requisition all the 
forces of logic and criticism, but they display an evident 
and deep-rooted prejudice. Out of many instances I shall 
mention only one or two. Jacob, by the Calvinists, is re- 
garded as one of the elect, and Esau as one of the repro- 
baie. For this reason Anti-Calvinists discover a strong 
_ partiality in favour of Esau, and a deep-rooted prejudice 
against Jacob. Doctor B. writes thus: “ In the lives of 
* the patriarchs he finds an inexhaustible source of iistruc- 
. « tion, religious, moral, and prudential, whether he re- 
** flects on the faith or resignation of Abraham, the piety 
«and mildness of Isaac, the art and duplicity of Jacob, 
*‘ or the liberal. affectionate and forgiving character of 
«« Esau.” 

Dr. Adam Clarke maintains, that Esau with his four hun- 
dred men had no hostile intention against Jacob ; but only 
meant to honour him! When he runs to meet Jacob, the 
learned Doctor rapturously exclaims, “‘ How sincere and 
* genuine is this conduct of Esau, and at the same time 
** how magnanimous! He had buried all his resentment, 
“« forgiven all his injuries, and receives his brother with the 
* strongest demonstrations, not only of forgiveness, but of 
*< fraternal affection,’’—Again, he asks, ‘If the blessings 
* had referred to their eternal states, had not Esau as faira 
“ prospect for endless glory as his deceitful and unfeeling 
«“ brother? Justice and mercy both say—Yes.’’ That it 
is not justice nor mercy, but deep-rooted prejudice against 
Calvinism, that says—Yes—I appeal to the Doctor’s own | 
words : they run thus: “ It appears that Jacob was on the. 
‘« whole a man of more religion, and believed the divine | 
*« promises more, than Esau.’ Now, I ask, has a man-of 
less religion as fair a prospect for endless glory as one of 
more religion ?—justice, mercy. scripture, and common 
sense, say—No. The truth is, that no man whose mind 
was not deeply imbued with prejudice, would ever think of 
comparing the characters of Jacob and Esau with respect 
toreligion. Religion! Where was the religion of Esau? 
The Scriptures do not represent him as a man of religion at 
all, but as a profane. irreligious character. They set him 
up as a beacon on a mountain, that others, being shocked 
by the grossness of his profanity, may avoid the rock on 
which he made shipwreck. ‘‘ Looking diligently,”’ says _ 


239 


the Apostle, “ lest, there be any fornicator or profane person 
«as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” 
On the contrary, in the whole word of God, there is not a 
character more celebrated nor more honoured for his piety 
than Jacob. John, the beloved Disciple, leaned on the 
bosom of the Redeemer: Moses conversed with him as a_ 
man with his friend: but Jacob wrestled with him. He said, 
«¢ Twill not let thee go except thou bless me.”’ Like a prince, 
he had power with God and man, and prevailed. in a va- 
riety of respects he was honoured above all the men that 
ever lived. The Old Testament church was called by his 
name; and New Testament believers are also styled ‘* the 


. © Israel of God.” One calls himself by the name of Jacob, 


and another subscribes with his hand unto the Lord, and sir- 
names himself by the name of Israel. Nay, the Deity him- 
self appears to delight in such epithets as these; ‘ The 
** God of Jacob’’—‘‘ the mighty God of Jacob’’—* the God 
‘* of Israel.’’—In the 24th Psalm, he seems to assume the 
very name Jacob. <‘'This is the generation of them that 
*« seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob! He even swears 
“© by the eaxcellency of Jacob.” In a word, the spirit of 
God does not compare, but contrasts, the characters of Ja- 
cob and Esau. He declares again and again, that he loved - 
Jacob and hated Esau. He holds up Jacob as a pattern of 
piety, and Esau asan example of profanity. Heloads Jacob 
with honours, and brands Esau with disgrace. 
‘Between the manner in which God treats the characters 
of Jacob and Esau, and the manner in which Dr. B. and 
Dr. A. Clarke treat those characters, there is a very striking 
contrast. God treats Jacob with the greatest respect ; but 
these Doctors treat him with the greatest disrespect ! God 
exhibits in a striking point of light all the virtues and per- 
fections of Jacob; but these learned Divines throw those 
virtues and perfections into the shade! Dr. B. does not 
mention one of them.—His jaundiced eye sees nothing in 
that patriarch but ‘‘ art and duplicity!” God brands with 
infamy the character of Esau ; whilst those learned Doctors 
are careful to emblason it—to exhibit it in the most amiable. 
and interesting point of light! To his servant Jacob God 
does not say one reproachful word ; whilst those Rev. Dé 
vines load him ‘with the most opprobrious epithets! On 
the contrary, God never applies one epithet of respect to 
the character of Esau: whilst Dr. B. and Dr. A. Clarke 
: endeavour to embalm it by such honourable appellations ag 


240 


liberal, affectionate, forgiving, and magnanimous! In the 
name of every thing sacred, | ask, why do these Divines fly 
in the face of their Maker? Why do they pour contempt 
on that character which God delights to honour, and load 
with honours that character which God has branded with 
infamy? ‘The most charitable account that can possibly 
be given of conduct so extraordinary, I had almost said im- 
pious is—a deep-rooted prejudice against the Calvinistic 

doctrine of election and reprobation.—On the same princi- 
ple we can account for Dr. Clarke’s extraordinary exertions 
to prove, that Judas will be saved. The Deity assures us, 
that it would have been good for Judas had he never been 
born—that he was the son of perdition—and went to his 
own place. Alrnost the whole of the one hundred and ninth 
Psalm is employed in denouncing vengeance on the head of 
the traitor. We are there particularly assured (if we trans- 
late into the future tense instead of the imperative mood), 
that when judged he shall be condemned; and that his 
very prayer should become sin.—But Dr. Clarke endeavours 
to prove that Judas was a true penitent, and shall finally 
be acquitted and saved! We do not deny, that the Scrip- 
tures teach a national election, or an election to the enjoy- 
ment of church privileges; but we maintain that the Scrip- 
tures also teach a personal election, or an electign of 
particular persons, not only to external privileges, but to 
eternal life. Their number is as definite as if their names. 

were written in a book. Of Clement and others it is said, 

ee iv. 3.) that their names are written in the book oflife. 

n various other Scriptures the heirs of glory are so repre-_ 
sented. ‘The Apostle John addressed his second epistle to 
the elect lady and her children, and mentions also her elect 
sister. ‘‘ When the children of Jacob are styled God’s 
‘¢ chosen ones,’”’ Dr. B. assures us, that it is not meant that 
‘< every one of the Israelites was chosen, but that they were 
‘‘ members of the chosen nation.’ Supposing that this 
sentence did not contradict the axiom, that ‘“‘ The whole ts — 
“< equal to its parts.” Supposing the assertion true— — 
still it would not follow, that the election of which we are 
treating is not particular or personal—for Clement is an ine 
dividual—the elect lady is an individual—and her elect sis- 
ter is an individual. Particular persons are elected, and 
particular persons have their names written in heaven. 
(Luke, x. 20,)—Romans, eighth, from the twenty-eighth 
to the thirtieth verse inclusive, is an irréefragable proof of ~— 


4 


241 
particular election. «And we know that all things work 
*« together for good to them that love God, to them who 
“are the called according to his purpose. For whom he 
“¢ did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed 
“to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn 
‘“* among many brethren. - Moreover whom he did predes- 
*¢ tinate,-them he also called: and whom he called, them | 
_ ‘the also justified: and whom he justified, them he also 
_. * glorified.” 
__ Dr. B. alleges, that in this beautiful passage the Apostle 
“Speaks of the Christian church at large.” Let us try 
the application. Are all the members of the church at 
large conformed to the image of God’s Son? Are all the 
members of the church at large justified? Will they all 
be glorified? Surely not. The Doctor understands the 
_ Clause “‘ whom he called,” as equivalent to—whom he ‘ in- 
‘‘ vited into the Christian. church.” Now, I ask, Did all 
things work together for good to such? By no means. 
Many were called and invited into the Christian church, who 
made light of. the invitation, who said, ¢ We will not have 
‘* this man to reign over us; this is the heir, come let us_ 
«kill him.”” Did all things work together for their good ? 
. Quite the reverse. « The King of Heaven sent forth his 
“armies and destroyed these murderers, and burned up 
_ ‘their city.” Again, I would ask, Do all things work to- 
_ gether for good to those who are not only invited’ into the 
Christian church, but who accept of the Invitation, and be- 
come church members? are all ‘such justified ? will all 
such be glorified? Surely not. It is therefore abundantly — 
_ evident that the Apostle is not speaking of the ** Chris. 
_ “tian church at large,” as the Doctor affirms, but only 
eof a particular select number, or, in other words, éhe 
elect. . : ee . 
Dr. B. declares, that «if we cannot explain this passage 
-** conformably to our Saviour’s doctrine, we should rather. 
_ “ abandon it as unintelligible, than prefer the lower autho. 
_ ‘rity to the higher.”? Plain language indeed! T'o apply | 
_ the epithets higher and lower authority to the Holy Scrip- 
tures, which were all given by inspiration of God; and to” 
express a readiness to abandon any portion of those sacred — 
oracles, savours more of Deism than of Christianity. To — 
_ do the Doctor justice, however, he must abandon the pas- 
_ Sage in question. He must either abandon it, or abandon 
_ his own favourite hypothesis. He must either abandon #2, 
21° 


242 


or admit the doctrine of predestination against which he. 
preaches so long asermon. The Calvinist 1s determined 
neither to abandon this, nor any other passage of the sa- 
cred volume. ‘T'o the Arian it may appear unintelligible, 
and must appear so, whilst he denies predestination ; not 
so to the Calvinist. To him it appears a glorious chain of 
special privileges extending from eternity to eternity. His 
view of it is this—That those of the fallen human family, 
who were the objects of God’s foreknowledge, or of his 
eternal distinguishing love,* he predestinated or fore- 
ordained to be conformed to Jesus Christ his Son, not only 
in suffering, but in holiness and happiness. Those same 
persons whom he thus predestinated, he in due time calls, 
not only eaternally by his word, but internally and effica- 
ciously, by his Spirit. He calls them from darkness to light 
—from death to life—from Satan to God. ‘He persuades 
‘¢ and enables them to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered 
‘< to them in the Gospel.” The persons thus effectually 
called he also justifies. «‘‘ He freely pardons all their sins, 
«‘ and accepteth them as righteous in his sight, only for the 
‘‘ righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and received 
‘< by faith alone.’? Those same persons whom he thus 
justifies, he finally glorifies. He makes them ‘ perfectly 
** blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity.” 
After ten thousand attempts to torture the passage, this 
appears to be its plain and unsophisticated meaning. Nor 
is the doctrine of particular election, thus plainly taught by 
the Apostle, at all inconsistent with the doctrine taught by 
our Saviour. Doctor B. may boldly insinuate that they 


salt 


“ * Jt is generally acknowledged by Diyines—those who oppose as — 
well as those who adyocate the doctrine of predestination—that fore-.- 
kvowledge inthe text implies love or favour. Knowledge is frequently 

“put for love in Scripture. ‘ You only have I known of all the families 
of the earth.” Other families of the earth, as well as the Jews, were — 
the objects of God’s simple knowledge; but the Jews alone were the 

_ objects of his distinguishing love, (Deut. vii. 6,7, 8) *¢ The Lord thy © 

© God hath chosen thee to be.a special people unto himself, above all : 

“ péople that are. upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set 
“his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number 
‘¢ than any people’; for ye were the fewest of all people. But because 
“the Lord loved you’—It is to this distinguishing, unmerited love 

_and gracious election that God refers when he says ‘* You only have i 
“known of all the families of the earth.” On the same principle, it is 
to the distinguishing and electing love of God that the apostle refers: 
when he says; “ Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate” 


243 


areinconsistent ; but the insinuation is as groundless asit 
istmpious. It appears to me that the doctrine of election 
and reprobation is taught by our Saviour in language nearly, 
if not altogether, as explicit as that of the Apostle. ‘I 
‘* have othér sheep,”’ says he, “that are not of this fold, 
‘them also must I bring,’’? &c.—*‘ All that the Father 
‘‘ hath given to me shall come unto me.~—Thou hast given 
‘him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to 
**-as many as thou hast given him.—I thank thee, O Father, 
‘s Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things 
*¢ from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto 
*< babes; even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy 
“-sight.—-Rejoice, because, your names are written in 
*‘ heaven.—But ye believe not because ye are not of my 
‘* sheep.”’ ans 
As Doctor Bruce’s commentary on the eighth of the 
Romazis leads into this gross absurdity—that the whole vi- 
sible church will be saved : to avoid this consequence, Dr. 
A. Clarke adopts an ingenious expedient. As Rehoboam 
substituted shields of brass, instead of the golden shields 
which Shishack, King of Egypt carried away, so Doctor 
C. takes away the golden link of eternal glory, and sub- 
Stitutes the brazen one of temporal privileges! 'The clause, 
‘sThem he also glorified,’”’ he explains thus: ‘‘ He has 
*«« honoured and dignified the Gentiles with the highest pri- 
‘* vileges. He has rendered them illustrious by innumer- 
“* able gifts, graces, and privileges, in the same manner as 
«she had done to the Israelites of old.”? Thus, to get rid 
of Calvinistic decrees, this learned commentator “ shrivels 
“<< into meagreness’’ the most beautiful passage in the whole 
book of God. That the word glorified refers not to tem- 
poral privileges, as the Doctor imagines, but to eternal 
felicity, is evident from the antecedent context, (verses 17, 
18,) ‘« And if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint 
*¢ heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with him, that 
we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that 
- ‘the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be 
_ © compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” 
| The various unsuccessful and contradictory attempts made 
by the enemies of Calvinism, to explain the passage in 
question, are a strong presumptive argument, that the Cal- 
__-yinistic interpretation is the true one. == sis; : 
_ Were the word election, in Scripture, applicable only to 
~  Mations, but not to individuals, what would our opponents 
gain? It will be said, no doubt, that this election to ex- 


244 
ternal privileges was very different from a particular elec- 
tion to eternal life. ‘To show, however, that the difference 
is not so great as is generally imagined, I would ask, were 
not thousands saved in consequence of this national elec- 
tion, that would not have been saved had they not been 
elected? This question, I presume, will be universally 
answered in the affirmative. No person will venture to 
maintain, that as small a number of Jews obtained eternal | 
_ life, as of the surrounding heathen nations of equal extent. 
Even Doctor A. Clarke, who affirms, that Esau had as fair 
a prospect for immortal glory as Jacob, will not be bold 
enough to assert, that the Edomites had as fair a prospect 
for glory as the Israelites. He will not venture to assert, 
that as many of the one nation were saved, as of the other. 
«‘ Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, O peo- 
‘s ple saved by the Lord?’’ Salvation was of the Jews. 
Now, if thousands of Jews were saved, that would not 
have been saved had their nation not been elected, all those 
thousands, whatever be their number, owe their salvation, 
their eternal salvation, to election—to a gratuitous election 
—an election, not of works, but of grace. The same may 
be said of those nations elected to the enjoyment of Chris- 
tian privileges. _Are not thousands saved in Britain and 
Ireland, that would mot have been saved had they been left 
ina state of Heathenism? ‘T'o what do all these owe their 
salvation? TO THEIR ELECTION—to the free sovereign and 
electing love of God, who purposed from all eternity to sepa» 
rate them from the rest of the world, and elected them to 
the enjoyment of those external privileges, by the means 
of which they are finally saved. Where now is all the 
noisy declamation agathst the doctrine of particular elec- 
tion ? Does it not recoil on the opponents of the doctrine ? 
Where is now the loud cry of favouritism and partiality ? 
Was there no favouritism or partiality in electing a whole 
nation, whilst all the rest of the world was rejected ? whilst 
all other nations were permitted to walkin their own ways ? 
Has the Deity shown no favouritism or. partiality in elect- 
ing the various nations of Christendom to the enjoyment 
of the privileges of the Christian Church, whilst all the 
other nations of the earth, enveloped in darkness worse 
than Egyptian, are left ‘‘ without God and hope in the 
‘** world.’ Did the Almighty discover no favouritism or 
partiality by so loving the world as to send his only begot- 
.ten Son; that whosoever believeth on him should not pe- 


245 


Fish but have everlasting life ; whilst a more noble order 
‘of beings, who kept not their first state, ‘* were cast down 
__. “to hell, and reserved in chains of darkness till the judg- 
,» ment of the great day ”’ Let our opponents show, that 
__ . the Deity has discovered no favouritism or partiality in these 
_, things, and we will show, that he has discovered none in 
_—s- particular election. 
The charge of partiality so long and loudly vociferated, 
goes upon the false principle, that sinners of our family 
have claims on divine grace and bounty. But, even Dr, B. 
himself being witness, we have no such claims. ‘: Few,” — 
says the Doctor, ‘‘ very few indeed, are the legal claims 
__ ** which we have upon the divine justice, and we have none 
_ “upon his bounty ; and yet infinite are the gifts he has to 
“bestow.”? Why then, [ask, should any venture to charge 
the Deity with favouritism and partiality, because he dis- 
penses his own unmerited bounty as he pleases? To every 
such objector the Almighty may justly reply, “Is it not 
** lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thy 
** eye evil because [ am good ?”’ 
_ The Arminian objection of partiality leads into Deism. 
A principal objection against revelation is drawn from its 
partiality. Deists argue that the Scriptures cannot be the 
_. word of God, because they are not communicated to all ; 
hs and this, they allege, would make God partial. —The very 
same objection would lead to Atheism: For, in the works 
of creation and providence, God does not. confer the same 
favours upon all. His sovereignty shines in all his works, 


. 


and in allhis dispensations. . | i” 
Another objection—an objection.on which our opponents 
seem principally to rely, and which Dr. B. chiefly urges— 
is, that particular election supersedes the necessity of prayer 
_ and other means of grace. Why need we pray ? why need 
We strive? say our opponents. If we are elected, we shall 

~ besaved; but if not, we shall be condemned. Had not 
the absurdity of this objection been already pointed out 
we might retort it thus: If nations are elected to the enjoy- 
ment of Gospel privileges, why need we pray that the Gospel — 
may be sent to the heathen? Why need we form. mis- 

_ Sionary societies, for the purpose of sending through the 
world the giad tidings of great joy? The nations that 
God has elected to enjoy such privileges shall enjoy them ; 
_ therefore our prayers and missionary exertions are altogether 


~ useless ! 


21% 


Ye 


) 
5 


246 


CHAPTER VIII. 
The Perseverance of the Saints. 


_ Iw the general attack made by Dr. B. on almost all the 
fundamental truths of Christianity, we could not expect the 
doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance to escape. He has 
assailed it, not only incidentally, in his Sermons, but ens 
deavoured to hold it up to detestation and contempt in’ his 
Appendix. With the abominable Antinomian quotations 
which he has given, we have no manner of concern. Dr. 
5. himself does not hold those quotations in greater abhor- 
rence than we do. However foolishly, impiously, or blas- 
phemously, Antinomians may talk or write on the subject ; 
no doctrine contained in the sacred volume is capable of a 
more triumphant defence. Out of an immense mass of 
evidence, I shall lay before my readers a few of those reasons 
which induce me to believe the doctrine. | 

1, To me it appears, that a multitude of texts of Scrip- 
ture must be false, if the doctrine of perseverance is not 
true. I shall mention a few.—Our Saviour asserts, “‘ He 
“¢ that believeth shall be saved,”? but Dr. Bruce asserts, and 
all Anti-Calvinists assert, that believers may fall from a 
state of grace and be condemned !—Our Saviour asserts, that 
whosoever believeth on him shall not perish, and that his 
sheep shall never perish, nor be plucked out of his hand :* 
but Dr. B. and all Anti-Calvinists assert, that believers may 
perish, and that Christ’s sheep may be plucked out of his 
hand! Our Saviour assures us with a double verily, that 
the believer “ shall not come into condemnation, but is 
“< passed from death unto life;’’ but Dr. Bruce, and all 
Anti-Calvinists, assure us, that he may come into condem- 
nation, and never see life! Our Saviour will say to the 
wicked at that great day, ‘‘ Depart from me, I never knew 
‘“‘ you.”’ Had any of those addressed fallen away from a 
state of grace, the Redeemer’s declaration would not be 
true !—it would not be true that he had never known them ! 


a 


* If they do not assert in so many words, that Christ’s sheep may be 
plucked out of his hands, they assert what is fully equivalent. 


247 


From these counter-declarations I ask two questions: 1, 
Whether should we believe our blessed Redeemer, or Dr. B. 
and other opponents of the Saints’ perseverance ?—2, Does _ 
the Doctor’s volume of Sermons deserve that high charac- 
ter which he himself has given it? is it «consistent with 
** the Gospel ?” , 

Agreeable to the above-cited declarations of the Redeem- 
er are those of the Apostles. The Apostle John declares, 
“ That he that doth evil hath not seen God,”’ and that 
** Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.” 
—Now, if the doctrine of perseverance is not true, these 
texts are false. If any fall away’ from a state of grace, 
commit sin, and do evil, it is not true, that they have not 
seen God, neither known him. Dr. B., and other opponents 
of the Saints’ perseverance, maintain, that a man may have 
seen God and also known him, and after all he may fall away, 
** commit sin, do evil,’’ and finally perish. Between this 
doctrine and that of the Apostle, is there not a flat contra- 
diction? Surely there is. TM SAS | 

2. The doctrine of the Saints’ perseverance rests on the, 
solid basis of the divine perfections. The foreknowledge 
of God proves the doctrine. «God. hath not cast off his 
** people whom he foreknew.”” <* Whom he did foreknow 
he also did predestinate, and whom he did predestinate 
*‘ them he also called, and whom he called them he also 
*« justified, and whom he justified them he also glorified.’? 
Unless this golden chain can be broken, the Saints’ perse- 
Verance cannot be denied. ‘The Apostle’s chain is what 
logicians denominate a sorites. The conclusion is not ex-, 
pressed, it is this: therefore whom he did. foreknow them he 
- also glorified. If this conclusion be denied, then the Apos- 

tle’s chain is not a sorites, but a sophism! Ifit be admit- 


ie _ ted, the doctrine of the Saints’ perseverance is fully estab- 


lished. Some Divines, with a boldness bordering on ime 
piety, attempt to break the Apostle’s chain. Were they to 
succeed, they would prove—What ?—that the Apostle is an 
inconclusive and sophistical reasoner ! 

The omnipotent power of God secures the final perseve- 
rance of the Saints. They are « kept by the power of God 
_ “ through faith unto salvation.>— The love of God and the 

Redeemer secure the Saints’ perseverance. Whom the 
Redeemer loves “ he loves unto the end.”” God loved be- 
lievers with an everlasting love—draws them with loving 
kindness—declares that his loving kindness shall not depart 


248 


from them—and, accordingly, the Apostle exclaims, (Rom. 
Vill. 35) « Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? 
‘‘ shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, 
“ or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For 
“ thy sake we: are killed all the day long ; we are account- 
“ed as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things 
‘‘ we are more than conquerors through him that loved 
*¢ us.—For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor 
** angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, 

** nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other 
‘“ creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of 
* God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ 

3, [believe the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints, 
because they are “ members of his body, of his flesh, and of ~ 
*< his bones.’’ Could any of those members be torn off, 
the mystical body of the Redeemer would be a maimed and 
mutilated body! It would not be perfect and glorious, but 
unsightly and deformed! 

4. I believe that none of the Saints shall ever fail of ob- 
taining the heavenly inheritance, because their character 
to that inheritance is the very same with that of the Redeemer 


5 


i 
ES 
n 


hero a, ee eee rT 


4 


himself. They are “heirs of God and joint heirs with — 


«« Christ.”’ If the Redeemer’s charter be good, so is theirs. 
If his charter cannot be broken, neither can theirs. Their 
lives are hid with Christ t im God. Because he lives, they 
ee live also. 

. L believe that the Saints cannot totally and finally fall 
hen from a state of grace, or fail of obtaining the heavenly - 
inheritance ; because they have the first Sruits and, earnest 
ofthatinheritance. Ifan earnest gives security among men 
much more so with God. Men may refuse to make good 
that bargain which they have confirmed by giving earnest ; 
but God will not tantalize his creatures by first giving them 
the Holy Spirit as the earnest of their inheritance, and after- 

wards excluding them from the full possession. _ 

6. I believe that the Saints cannot finally fall away from _ 
a state ofgrace ; because “ they are sealed by the holy spirit 
“« of promise—sealed to the day of redemption.” ‘They 
cannot fall away and be lost, except the broad seal of! ae 
ven can be broken ! 

7. I believe in the perseverance of the Saints, because I 


; 
pa 


believe that “he who begins the good work of grace will — 


‘* carry it on to perfection.’’ I believe that the Deity is not 


like the foolish man, who began to build and was not able 


"249 
* 


to finish. When God threatened to destroy the. Israelites 
for their rebellion, Moses intercedes thus: (Deut. ix. 26, 
27, 28, 29,) «*O Lord God, destroy not thy people and 
‘ ¢¢ thine inheritance which thou hast redeemed through thy 
*¢ greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt 
** with a mighty hand. Remember thy servant Abraham, 
‘** Isaac and Jacob ; look not unto the stubbornness of this 
** people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin: Lest 
* the land whence thou broughtest us out say, Because the 
** Lord was not able to bring them into the land which he 
** promised them, and because he hated them, he hath 
_“ brought them out to slay them in the wilderness. Yet 
*‘ they are thy people and thine inheritance, which thou 
*« broughtest out by thy mighty power and by thy stretched 
** out arm.’’—On similar principles, Joshua intercedes: 
(Josh. vii. 7, 8,9) ‘‘ Alas, O Lord God,“wherefore hast 
** thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us 
** into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to 
** God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side 
** Jordan! O Lord, what shall I say, when Israel turneth 
** their backs before their enemies! For the Canaanites 
** and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and 
** shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the 
‘* earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name ?”— 
If it would have reflected dishonour on the great name of 
God, to redeem the Israelites out of Egypt, and then to de- 
stroy them in the Wilderness ; still more inconsistent with 
the divine perfections would _it be, to suffer those to fall 
ae finally perish, whom God has redeemed from sin and 
atan. . 

8. Finally ;* if the Saints might totally and finally fall 
from grace, their state now under the covenant.of grace 
would be worse than’ it was under the covenant of works. 
Under the covenant of works the happiness of man was sus- 
pended on the free will of an innocent being ; but, accor- 
' ding to the doctrine of those who deny the Saints’ perseve- 
rance, it is suspended on the free will of a weak, corrupt, 
and depraved being !—Men may fall away from an external 
profession of religion, but not from true faith. «From him 
“ that hath not,”’ says our Saviour, ‘shall be taken away 


cs I might have argued the doctrine from the death of Christ—his 
uretyship—his intercession—and a variety of other topics. 


250 


‘that which he hath ;” or,'as itis explained, « that which 
‘« he'seemeth to have.’ «They went out fromius,”’ ,says 
the Apostle John, “but they were not of us; for if they 
‘had been of'us, they would have no doubt continued with 
“us; hut they went out, that they might be made manifest - 
that they were not all of us.” | 


~ 


sae Se Ca 


Wek 


ts 


Oreeds and Confessions Defended, 
AND 


> 


ATTACKS MADE ON 
COVENANTERS, SECEDERS, &c. 


REPELLED, 


a 


A SERIES OF LETTERS 


Addressed to the anonymous auther of 


«THE BATTLE OF THE TWO DIALOGUES,” 


x 


Doth our law judge any man, before it hear iim, and know what he doth? 


Paul, thou art 4 permite to speak for thyself 


\ ADVERTISEMENT. 

Atracks, from various quarters, having lately been made 
on the principles which the writer of the following letters 
has espoused, and on the denomination to which he has the 
honour to belong—for some time past he has waited with 
anxiety, expecting every moment to see them repelled by 
some abler antagonist. In this expectation he has been 
hitherto disappointed. Those gentlemen, who, by talents, 
learning, and other accomplishments, seemed best qualified 
for entering the lists, appear to have regarded such attacks 
as despicable : they have therefore treated them with silent 
‘contempt. On this subject the author entertains a different 
opinion. i 

Though a pamphlet jn itself may be really insignificant ; 
and though, in the estimation of men of learning and talents, 
it may be truly contemptible ; yet, if, falling in with- the 
tide of popular prejudice, it be written in a bold declama- 
tory style, its effects may be pernicious. By treating such 
pamphlets with silent contempt, sufficient deference is not 
paid to the opinion of the world. Silence may be construed 
into conscious imbecility, and contempt into cowardice. 
With fresh increments of audacity, attacks may be reiterated, 
till the press at last teem with the crude eructations of every 
“assuming pedagogue.’’ By such considerations the 


author feels himself impelled to stand forward as the feeble » 


advocate of a cause which has long been despised—as the 
apologist of a society obscure and inconsiderable. 

The various and important ends and uses of creeds and 
confessions have been accurately exhibited, and ably de- 
fended, by divines of great eminence.. Dunlop on Confes- 
sions may be consulted with advantage. The writer of the 
following letters has confined himself to one single view of 

the subject ; and the chain of reasoning, which he has em- 
ployed, has at least one recommendation—it is, so far as he 
knows, new. : 7 7 ‘ 

Some may blame the author, because on all occasions he 
has not been careful to preserve his gravity: whilst others 
again, considering the spirit of the pamphlet on which he 
animadverts, may think that he is only too grave and serious. 
Whether he is actually guilty of running into ezther of these 


‘ 


\ 


Vg 


253 


extremes, is not his province to determine. All he can say 
is, that attention to the golden medium has been his object. 
The principle upon which he proceeds, is—that reasoning 
ought to be refuted by argument ; but that satire is the only 
weapon with-which folly and impertinence can be success- 
fully assailed. The author hopes, that the candour of the 
reader will prevent him from identifying the Rev. Presby- 
terian with the Synod of Ulster, or imputing to that learned 
body the blunders, absurdities, and contradictions of one of 
its members. N othing can be more unfair, though nothing 
is more common, than to impute the errors of an individual 
to a whole community, 

With regard to the continuance of the controversy, the 
author has only to say, that he neither feels disposed to pro- 
voke, nor to deprecate discussion, He holds no principle 
which he has not previously examined in private, and which 
he is not willing to submit to a public examination. If the 
tenets of any other denomination can be clearly shown to 

~be more agreeable to the word of God, he can have no in- 

terest in refusing to adopt them. As truth excels error, as 
far as light excels darkness—go, when she is exhibited hold- 
ing not only in her right hand spiritual blessings, but in her 
left riches and honour, surely they must be worse than fools 
who would refuse to embrace her, 

Should the Rey, Presbyterian, or any other gentleman, 
think proper to renew the attack, the author hopes that he 
will not, like Joab, carry his dagger under a cloak, for the 
purpose of stabbing in secret the characters of his superiors: 
wrapping himself up in ignominious obscurity, he will not 
attempt to screen himself from public chastisement, 


22 


LETTER 1. epltaiaivc 
TO THE REV. PRESBYTERIAN. ©” 


sir,” 

Tuat, both among the advocates and. opponents. of 
ereeds and confessions, men of great talents, learning and 
piety might be found, isa fact which I flattered myself none 
would dispute. In this it appears I have been mistaken. 
The advocates of creeds and confessions, in your Battle of 
Dialogues, you represent as a truly despicable race of mor; 
tals, you contemptuously style them creed-makers and 
ereed-mongers, whocoin formulas to measure men’s consci- 
ences, and you gravely inform us that ‘‘ ninety-nine out of 
a hundred who contend for creeds never think what, they 
are ; and ‘the few who do read them neyer think of the 
meaning of language.’’ What contemptible miscreants 
are these same advocates of creeds and confessions! Nine- 
ty-nine out of a hundred, though they subscribe them, and 
though they.contend for them, yet never read them! How 
implicit their faith! How blind their zeal!, ‘« And the few 
who do read them, never think of the meaning of language.” 
Still worse; a still lower degree of degradation} Hide 
your diminished heads, ye contemptible advocates of creeds 
and confessions. Never lift your pens—never'open your 
mouths—be for ever silent ; for ye never think of the mean- 
ing of language! With infinite contempt, Rev. Sir, you 


look down on the “ pitiable creatures who know not between — y 


i-h-e and t-h-e-y ;”’ and with proud disdain, mingled with pa- 
thetic lamentation, you stigmatize that ‘‘ most ungrammati- 
cal talking, which is frequently palmed on the people for 

preaching.” Surely, said I, (whilst meditating on these 
things) surely, said I, the writer of this dialogue is an admi- 
rable Scholar—an accurate grammarian—a profound philo- 
logist. In this; however, I confess, I found myselfa little dis- 
appointed. ‘The perusal of your pamphlet, I candidly ac- 
knowledge, did not altogether answer the expectations you — 


ae 
had raised. Glancing at your pages in a critical point of 
view, to my great astonishment I found them replete. with » 
grammatical blunders. For my own entertainment, I mark- | 
ed a number of them on the margin: and for your gratifi- | 
cation, I shall exhibit a specimen. * ee 
_ Page 6, line 6 from the bottom, the pronoun they is in 
the plural number, whilst Seceder, the noun for which it 
stands, is singular. On the contrary, page 19, line 12, the 
pronoun z is singular, whilst instructions, the noun for 
which it stands, is plural. Same page, line 7 from the bot- 
tom, the verb, must subscribe, has two nominatives, negro 
and he: on the contrary, page 9, line 4 from the bottom, 
the verb hope has no nominative at all ; for when two verbs 
of different moods or tenses are coupled together by a con- 
junction, the nominative of the former must be repeated be- 
fore the latter. Additional violations of this rule will be 
Seen, page 21, line 19, and page 30, line 10. In page 22, 
line 16 from the bottom; and page 45, line 2, examples 
will be seen of the verb disagreeing with its nominative 
case. A variety of other grammatical blunders might be 
pointed out ; but these may suflice at present. 
_ Let us attend a little to the style of your dialogue. Of 
your talents for composition you appear by no means diffi- 
dent. Whilst you reprobate the advocates of creeds and 
confessions, as ignoramuses who never think of the meaning 
of language, you speak, with apparent self-complacency, of 
the well ordered words you have used in a former dialogue. 
Of that dialogue, having never seen it,t I can only say, I 
hope its words are much better ordered than those of the 
one now under review. : 


Li HAAN US Epc ales se ART RO RTE SR 


* Omitting this letter, at least the grammatical part of it, the unlearn- 

ed reader uray pass on to Letter I. : 
¥ Since writing the: above, the original Dialogue has fallen into my 
hands. For a specimen of the philological talents of its author, we 
have only to consult the bottom of the title page.—‘ Belfast, printed 
this present year, 1817.” Lest any persou should imagine that 1817 
was not present when it was present; or lest any person should ima- 
gine that it was not printed 1817, A.D. but 1817, A.M.; or in other 


_ words, that it was printed in the days of Noah, a little after the univer- 


sal deluge—to prevent all misconceptions of this kind, the author * in 


_ words few and well ordered,” not only informs. us, that the pamphlet 


me 


was printed 1817 ; but gravely assures us that that year was then pre- 
sent. After such a specimen of accuracy in the title page, who can 
doubt that the Dialogue itself is admirably composed ? 


256 


In your Battle of Dialogues, page 14, we read thus; 
«« But there were many exceptions to the Talmud amongst 
the Jews? and we have every reason to believe, that Timo- 
thy andhis forefathers were of the number.”” Were Timothy 
and his forefathers exceptions to the Talmud? Are these 
words well ordered? are they sense? Same page, near 
the bottom, we are informed, that ‘‘ the birth of Jesus Christ, 
his person, &c. were handed down by the Holy Ghost 


through the instrumentality of the apostles.’’ Pray, sir, 


how was the person of Christ (as distinct from his preach- 


ing and doctrines, which are tautologically mentioned in — 


the same sentence,) how was the person of Christ handed 
down by the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the 
apostles? Had you been a Rev. Catholic, instead of a 
Rev. Presbyterian, I would have at once recognised the 
doctrine of transubstantiation. ! 

In page 16, we are informed that “the Israelites had 
disagreed to walk according to God’s commandments.”’— 
To agree to walk according to the commandments of God, 
is perfectly intelligible ; but to disagree to walk according 
to these commandments, is neither English nor sense. 

Page 19, weare told, that «‘ though the Spirit was given 
to Jesus without measure, yet the apostles got it as it were 
step by step.”—-To get a gift, as it were step by step, is not 
English. 

Page 20, we read thus : “‘ you have now passed over the 
whole of his arguments.’’—The words passed over convey 


the erroneous idea, that he had not adverted to those argu- » 


ments at all.—Same page, at the bottom, you propose to 
put Layman in possession of a standard, which will answer 
in all engagements, and against all enemies. Now, what 
is this standard? It is the girdle of truth, the breastplate 
of righteousness, the shoes of gospel preparation, &c. A 
very remarkable standard, indeed! One would expect, that 
the hero who fought the Battle of Dialogues would under- 
stand military terms better, than to confound a girdle, a 
breastplate, or a pair of shoes, with a standard ! 
Page 22, we read thus: Charity, or at least prudence, 
might have constrained your colleague from making such 
an attack, and from warping into it the motives, é&c. Not 
to mention constrained for restrained, which may possibly 
be only a typographical error—what a jumble of metaphors ! 


Warping motives into an attack! A very extraordinary = 


web, no doubt ! 


257 


Page 26, the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the protes- 
tants of England are styled the most learned assemblies in 


_ the world.—We know, that the Presbyterians of Scotland 


are under the inspection of a very learned assembly ; but 


are the Presbyterians themselves an assembly? Are the 
Protestants of England an assembly! Well ordered words 
indeed! iy. 

Page 13, we read thus: “On being asked, «Do you 
think that either the divine Jesus or his apostles, made use 
of any other standard of faith besides the scriptures ?’ he says, 
‘1 am quite certain that they did.’ After such boldness, a 
person of plain sense would expect a quotation or two from 
that of which he isso certain.’’—Now, that of which he is 
so certain, is, ‘‘that the divine Jesus, and his apostles, 
made use of another standard besides the bible.” It is the 
truth of this proposition, of which he is so certain. To ex- 
pect a quotation or two from the truth of a proposition, is 
surely ludicrous enough! So absurd an expectation, ‘] 
am quite certain,’’ was never entertained by any person of 
plain sense. 

‘Page 35, you express yourself thus : “ The ground of 
my loyalty is not founded on the countenance of govern- 
ment.’’ This sentence. when analysed, will read as fol- 
lows :—The foundation of my loyalty is not built on the 
foundation of the countenance of government. Well order- 
ed words indeed! | 

Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, has a chapter 
on ‘‘ What is the cause that nonsense so often escapes be- 
ing detected, both by the writer and by the reader?” A 
careful perusal of this chapter I would earnestly recommend 
to all who read the Battle of Dialogues. The various kinds 
of nonsense enumerated by Campbell, are, The puerile, the 


( learned, the profound, and the marvellous. With great sub- 


mission, I conceive the enumeration is incomplete: he 
ought to have added the pedantic. 

Inthe preceding pages, I have exhibited a few of the 
blunders, in grammar and in style, with which the Battle 
of Dialogues abounds, I say, a few; for, to exhibit them 
all, would swell this letter to a size much larger, than that 
ofthe Dialogueitself. ‘6 


_ My Reverend and dear Presbyterian, I am extremely 
Sorry for your calamity. — Before you attacked the adyo- 


cates of creeds and confessions, you were doubtless an 
excellent scholar, an accurate grammarian; an acute philo- 


258 - 


logist: but now, alas! your learning is fled—your talents 
are blasted. Asan atonement for your sin, by which you 
have brought upon yourself so awful a judgment, I shall 
take the liberty of prescribing for you a course of penance. 


It is this: that, at the first meeting of Synod, you come 


forth from your lurking place, with tears in your eyes, and 


the Battle of Dialogues in your hands, confessing yourself — 


to be the author of that performance. 


- Qdly;. That in open Synod you fall on your bended . 


knees, humbly begging the pardon of all the advocates of 
creeds and confessions, professing, at the same time, the 
deepest sorrow for the scurrilous manner in which you have 
treatedthem. | 

3dly. That you bring forward a motion to the following 
effect :—That no member of the Synod of Ulster shall, on 
pain of public censure, presume to aitack the Westminster 
Divines, or any of the advocates of Creeds and Confessions, 
till, having previously studied Murray’s grammar, he is able 
to write a couple of pages without committing any material 
blunder. 

The utility of this motion you will easily perceive. In 
the first place, it may be the means of averting future judg- 
ments. In the second place, it will preserve the respecta- 
bility of the Synod. It will prevent that venerable and learned 


body from being disgraced by the incoherent effusions of 


every contemptible scribbler. In the third place, (for 1 
love to be methodical) it will have an admirable effect upon 
pulpit exhibitions. It will prevent “‘’‘The most ungram- 
matical talking from being palmed on the people for preach- 
ing.”’- Those, you know, who write ungrammatically, will, 
of course, talk no better. And, indeed, either to write or 
talk ungrammatically, in this learned age, is quite intolera- 
ble, I had almost said unpardonable. With great propriety, 
therefore, you drop the tear of lamentation, whilst you 
express yourself thus: ‘‘ Alas! sir, you are well aware, 
that the most ungrammatical talking is frequently palmed 
on the people for preaching.’”’ It is true, indeed, that a 
bigoted Seceder or Covenanter would have probably said, 
alas! sir, you know that the most erroneous and heretical 
talking is frequently palmed on the people for preaching. 
Alas! sir, you know that ‘there are certain men crept in 
unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condem- 
nation ; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into 


lasciviousness, and denying the Lord God, and our Lord | 


Ba) 
iy 
‘ 


“Saal 


ms 


259 


Jesus Christ.’’—Alas! sir, you know, that, for a long time 
past, ‘< false teachers have been privily bringing in damna~- 
ble heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and 
bringing upon themselves swift destruction””—Alas ! sir, you 
know, that ‘many follow their pernicious ways, by reason 
af which the way of truth is evil spoken of.” Alas! sir, 
you know, “that, through covetousness,’? these false 
teachers, ‘‘ with feigned words, make merchandize of”’ 
their hearers.—Alas! sir, you know, that their « judg- 
ment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation | 
slumbereth not.’’ Alas! sir, you know, that because 

men ‘receive not the love of the truth, that they may be 
saved, for this cause God sends them strong delusion, that 
they may believe a lie; that they all may be damned who 
believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. ’? 
Such, my dear sir, was current language seventeen or eigh- 
teen hundred years ago: nay, so rude are some of the old 
advocates of creeds and confessions, that they retain it even 
in the present day. You assure us, however, that the term 
heretic is used only as a bug-bear to frighten children ; 
and that the utmost we can expect of men is, ‘‘to act on 


_ their opinions.” We have no just reason, therefore, to 


a lament, that errors aad heresies are frequently palmed on 
the people for preaching. We have no reason to blame 


the propagators of these errors, heresies, and doctrines of 


devils. The utmost we can expect of them is, to act on 


their opinions. 

With regard to ungrammatical talkers, the case is quite 
different. For these there is no apology. The remedy ig 
obvious. Let them return and spend a few additional 
months at the grammar school—for the same purpose, let 
them peruse this letter, which I design for their edification. 

[ am, Sir, your sincere friend, 
And fellow-labourer in grammar, 
JOHN PAUL. 


SS he ee 


MTA Df 
aot CS ‘ 


MPG Lo. ovicinoh or-ottupel 


260 


LETTER IL. 


My dear Sir, | 

A The Rev. Covenanter, with whom you contend in 
your Battle of Dialogues, appears to be a very puny an- 
tagonist ; the simplest and_best-natured creature in the 
world. During the whole of the conflict he never strikes a 


single blow ; but when smote on the one cheek, with the 


greatest meekness and good humour, turns to you the 
other. ‘T'o be candid, sir, | am afraid you have mistaken 
your man : Tam afraid your antagonist is a Quaker, and 
not a Covenanter. Covenanters, I can assure you, are not 
quite so tame as represented in your dialogue. A mistake, 
not altogether unlike the one just mentioned, [am sure you 
have made, when you assert that the dialogue which occa- 


sioned yours was written by a teacher, and not by a layman. 


Of this mistake, should you call in question the authenticity 
of my information, you can be convicted in the most satis- 
factory manner. Equally groundless is your ungenerous 


suspicion that the Rev. Covenanter was a member of a 


mixed club, who often assembled to drill Layman. In vain, 
sir, has that gentleman employed almost the whole of his 
life, (including seven years at Glasgow college)—in vain, 
T say, has he employed almost the whole of his life in culti- 
vating talents of a superior order; if, after all, afraid of 
appearing in the public field of controversy, he skulks in 
obscurity, and dares only to carry on a clandestine and 
inglorious war. he truth is, your supposition that Lay- 
~ man was drilled by the clergyman, is completely destroyed 
by your former assertion, that the layman was actually the 
clergyman in disguise. 

_Inyour controversy with Layman I do not design very 
formally to interfere. If you imagine you have fought a 
hard battle, and gained over him a signal victory, I shall 
not, unless in a few instances, attempt to pluck the laurels 
from your brow. I would only admonish you not to be too 
hasty in laying aside your armour ; for it does not appear 
to me, that the victory is quite so decisive. Your antago- 
nist may arise and renew the conflict. 


eo Be 


In your late Battle, had you acted merely on the de: 
fensive—had you only endeavoured to repel the attacks of 
Layman, J should never have entered the lists - but when — 
you carry on offensive operations against all creeds and — 
confessions, particularly the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, the National Covenant, the Solemn League and 
Covenant, together with that venerable assembly by which 


those ancient documents were compiled, I feel myself called 


an to take up the gauntlet—to stand forward in defence of 
principles and characters, which, in my humble opinion, 
are worthy to be held in the highest estimation, but which 
you have indecently and furiously assailed. 

The whole of your reasoning against creeds and con- 
fessions appears to me resolvable into that species of 
sophism which logicians style ignorantia elenchi, a mistake 
af the question. In page 10, you inform us, that the ques- 
tion is, ‘‘ Whether the word of God be a perfect rule of 
faith and manners.’ Now, sir, this is not the question at 
all. This never was the question. JI appeal to your own 
motto, «‘ The word of God, whichis contained in the scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to 
direct us, how we may glorify and enjoy him.”? This 
motto, which, by mistake, you quote from the Westminster 


- Confession of Faith, will be found in the Shorter Cate- 


chism. It contains an explicit declaration of the senti- 


ments of our Westminster Divines, with regard to the 
_ sufficiency and perfection-of scripture. It declares those 


sacred oracles to be, not, only the rule, but the only rule to. 


_ direct us in the glorification and enjoyment of God ; and 


if proves, beyond a doubt, that your statement is erroneous. 
Pray, sir, what advocate of creeds and confessions ever 


~ ealled’ in question either the perfection or infallibility of 
_ scripture? For what purpose, then, do you again, and | 


again, and again, talk about the perfection of scripture, and 
the infallibility of scripture—about mending that which is 
perfect, adding to infallibility, &c. What a waste of time 
and paper! On these points there is no dispute. You 
have fought, indeed, a hard battle ; but with whom? Not 


with the advocates of creeds and confessions, but with cer- 
_ tain imaginary beings, who deny the perfection and infalli- 


d 


_hility of scripture! In a word, you have set up a man of 


‘Straw, and over him you have gained a signal victory ! 


_. In reply to these observations, you will doubtless exclaim. 
_ Of what use, then, are human creeds and confessions ?. 


262 


Tanswer, they are useful, not for mending the word of God, 
not for adding to its perfection or infallibility, not as a 
rule of faith and manners—but they are useful, as they as- 
sist us in applying the rule of God’s word ;' they are useful 
as they assist us in understanding each other, with regard 
to the ideas we attach to the word of God—for these pur- 
poses, I contend, they are useful, and not only useful, but 
necessary. © ' eet Gib sti omom F 
' The controversy about creeds and confessions may be 
reduced, if I mistake not, to very narrow limits, thus: 
Rither a simple profession of faith in the scriptures (so 
far as belief is concerned,) is sufficient to entitle to the 
privileges of the Christian church, or it is not. [f such a 
profession is sufficient, then creeds and confessions are 
unnecessary ; if it 7s noé sufficient, then both the necessity 
and utility of creeds and confessions are fully established. 
Now, my dear sir, as you talk so much of the sufficiency, 
perfection, and infallibility of scripture, T ask you, Do you 
imagine that a simple profession of faith in the scriptures, 
is sufficient to entitle to the privileges of the Christian 
church? Were a person to apply to you for admission, 
and, upon his application, declare that he believed’ the 
scriptures to be the word of God, and, of course, that he 
believed: all the doctrines contained in that sacred volume, 
- would you regard this declaration as‘perfectly satisfactory ? 
—as perfectly sufficient to entitle him to admission ? Upon 


this principle, would you actually admit him? If you say 


you would, and prove that in doing so your conduct would 
be proper, you have gained yout péint : the controversy is 
ended. But, my dear sir, do you'Niot perceive, that if a 
simple profession of faith in the scriptures were all that is 
necessary to qualify for admission, the most erroneous and 
fanatical persons that ever lived could never be excluded. 
Those who “ give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of 
devils, forbidding to marry, and abstaining from meats,” 


must all be adinitted into your community. Those who — 


hold the doctrine ‘of the Nicolaitanes, and contend for a 
community of wives; and those who plead for polygamy, 
divorce, and even fornication, must all be received. Those 
who deny the Christian ‘sabbath, baptism, the Lord’s sup- 
per, the preaching of the werd, and even the obligation of 
the moral Jaw of God, must all become members of your 


society. ‘Those who believe the Redeemer to be the Su-_ 


eC 


prenye God ; those who believe him to be a superangelic " 


eae - 263 


being ; those who believe him to be a mere man, a pecca- 


_ ble being like ourselves; and those who believe that he had 


- no human nature at all, that his incarnation, death, resur- 


rection, and ascension, were all imaginary—all these must. 
be admitted by you to the enjoyment of the most solemn 
ordinances. If they profess their faith in the scriptures, 
you cannot refuse them. Dancers, Dunkers, J umpers, and 
Shakers, must all be admitted into your community. | If 
they profess their belief in the scriptures, you can ask no 
more ; yourself being judge, ‘‘ the utmost, that can be ex- 
pected of them is, to act on. their opinions.’’ Of course, 


When public worship commences, your alleys must ibe 


cleared, that the dancers may ‘‘ trip it on the light fantas- 
tic toe ;’’ whilst the J umpers and Shakers, having stripped 
off their clothes, leap till their heads strike the joists of 
your galleries, and their bodies fall down jn convulsions 
before you. tone 

Nor must you by any means refuse admission to the Fla- 
gellantes, who believe that salvation can only be obtained 
by faith and whipping. Presume not to deny them the most 
effectual means of their salvation—the cat-o’-nine-tails.— 
Whilst, with energy and zeal, they exercise their godly dis- 


__Cipline, and vigorously persevere in their pious flagellations, 


dare not to interfere. ‘The utmost you can. expect of 
them is, to act on their opinions.’? is , 

_ Suppose the next class of candidates for admission to be 
the Circoncelliones... With the clubs of Israel in ther 
hands, and the war-whoop of « Praise be to God” in their 
mouths, these ancient fanatics sallied forth in. frantic fury. 


As * vindicators of Justice, and protectors. of the oppres- 


ed,” they, enfranchised slaves, discharged debtors, cancelled 
bonds, and forced masters to exchange situations with their 


_ servants. With the clubs of Israel (for they used no swords, 


our Saviour having forbidden the use of one to Peter,) 
with, the clubs of Israel, breaking the. bones of their vie 


_ tims, and pouring into their eyes a solution of quick-lime 


and yinegar, they left them to perish in the utmost ‘agonies. - 
Violating. their vows. of chastity, they gave, themselves up 
to wine, and every species of impurity. At last, by volun- 


tary martyrdom, or suicide, they, terminated,a series of un 


exampled atrocities—These, no doubt, you would consider 


a coarse description of Christians... But what could you 


fo? If willing to:subscribe the scriptures, you could not 


264 


refuse them. ‘*The utmost’ you could expect of them 
would be, to act on their opinions.” — 

~The Adamites, the Cainites, the Serpentarians, and Sa- 
tanians, must all be admitted members of your society. 
It is true, the tenets of the Adamites might, perhaps, dis- 
please you a little— particularly the fundamental maxim of 
their society, ‘‘ Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli’”’— 
Swear, forswear, and reveal not the secret. Whilst they 
strenuously maintain, that it is highly improper to marry, 
or to wear any clothes, you must not presume to condemn 
their tenets ; for, according to your own doctrine, you are 
fallible as well as the Adamites ; you are as liable and’as 
likely to be mistaken, as they. In imitation of old father 
Adam, you must allow them the privilege of appearing in 
your assembly naked. ‘+The utmost you can. expert of 
them is, to act on their opinions.” 

Upon the same principle, I conclude, you are by far too 
liberal, to exclude from your community, the sect of the 
Cainites. You would not condemn this sect, for holding 
in the highest veneration such worthy characters as Cain, 
Corah, Dathan, Abiram and the Sodomites, but particu- 
larly J udas Iscariot, who was singularly useful in betraying 
the Redeemer, by whose blood we are saved! 

Nor must you, by any means, reject the Serpentarians, 
who venerate the serpent that beguiled Eve, supposing it to 
“be the son of God! 

Nor could you refuse the right hand of fellowship to the 
good old Satanians, who very wisely considered, that as the _ 
Devil was a being of great power, it was a dictate of 
prudence to venerate and adore him, You must not con- 
demn any of these tenets; for you are a fallible being, as 
liable and as likely to err, as any Serpentarian or Satanian 
in the world. «“ The utmost you could expect of such cha- 
- acters, is, to act on their opinions.” 

The Amsdorfians asserted, that’ good works were not 
only unprofitable, but: obstacles to our salvation. 

The Beguines maintained, that when once we are united 
to God, we arrive at a state, not only of sinless perfection, 
but impeceability—that we may indulge all our appetites 
and passions without restraint—that the greatest enormi- 
ties are perfectly innocent—and that we are bound by no 
Jaws, neither civil nor‘ecclesiastical, 

The Libertines contended, that God was the immediate — 


\ 


- 265 


author of every action—that, properly speaking, there was: _ 

no such thing as sin, nor any essential difference between 

right and wrong—that we might indulge all our appetites 

and passions without restraint—that, all our actions and pur- 

suits were perfectly imnocent—that our blessed Redeemer 

~ was nothing more than a mere je ne scai quoi,* composed 
of the Spirit of God and the opinion of man. : 

Now, Sir, is it not evident, that, upon your principles, 
Amsdorfians, Beguines, and Libertines, must all be admit- 
ted and recognised as church members? Professing to 
_ believe in the word of God, you could not refuse them. Nor 
- could you at all condemn their tenets. Why ?—You will 
- answer the question yourself. You are ‘as fallible, as lia- 
ble, and as likely to err,’’ as any Beguine, Amsdorfian, or 
Libertine in the world. ‘The utmost we can expect of 
men is, to act on their opinions-”’ 

To render your church a little more respectable, you 
might have. a few Stylites, or pillar-saints... These worthy 
characters, like St. Simeon Stylites, perched on the tops of 
towers forty or fifty cubits high, might stand there motion- 
less for thirty or forty years. The elevated piety and ex- 
alted devotion of these anchorites, could not fail to excite 
universal admiration: they would undoubtedly be looked 
up to by Christians of every description. Should our Rey. 
Presbyterian prove a little sceptical, and attempt to bring 
down from his high station one of these exalted characters, 
the anchorite might quote his authority thus: ‘I will set 
me on my tower, &c.’’ Continuing still a little sceptical, 
- Should your Reverence remonstrate with him—assure him 
that this was a perversion of scripture—and attempt. to 
substitute your own interpretation, his high mightiness 
might rejoin: According to your own doctrine, you are 
as fallible, as liable, and as likely to err, as any pillar saint. 
‘« One interpretation may be as good as another.’’ Mine 
may, therefore, be as good as yours. I will not come 
down. 

_ Thus, Sir, it appears, that upon your principles, persons 
whose opinions are the most fanatical, the most erroneous, 
the most immoral, the most impious and abominable, must 
all be admitted, and recognised as church members : profess- - 
ing their faith in the scriptures, they cannot be rejected. 


tase * T know not what. 


9 
a> 


266 


Of the heterogeneous materials of sucha church, the popu- 
lation of Noah’s ark would be only a faint representation.’ 
So far from living together in love and peace, the whole ' 
British army could not restrain them ‘from ‘cutting each 
Others’ throats. From sucha chureh ‘‘ Good Lord deliver 
us.”? If this be liberality, let me for ever remain a bigot.* 
In the preceding pages, I have endeavoured to point out 
the consequences; which'naturally, and in my humble opin- 
ion, necessarily follow from the position, that a. profession 
- 6f belief in the scriptures, is all that ‘is necessary to entitle’ 
to the privileges of the Christian church. :' ‘The consequen* 
ces | have inferred, I humbly conceive, naturally and neces 
sarily follow from the premises. Sorry, however, ‘would I 
be to insinuate, that ‘my friend, the Rev.» Presbyterian, 
would acknowledge these consequences. Pcan assure you, 
my dear sir, that I hope better things of ‘you. «I -flatter 
myself, that you were not aware of the consequences, to 
which the principles laid’ down in your dialogue: would: 
naturally lead you. IT cannot believé; Sir, that upon them 
acknowledgment of the scriptures, you would profess your- 
self willing to hold communion with all descriptions ‘of men, 
however immoral, impious, or abominable their tenets. oo 
Though Latitudinarian and sceptical principles/are fre~ 
quently palmed on the world under ‘the specious’ guise of 
liberality and charity ; yet I do not believe there’ is any 
Rev. Presbyterian hardy enough to avow the consequences 
mentioned above. | Loup 3 iat esiagoman: 64! 
Now, Sir, if you grant (and I am confident yourwill) that 
on a bare profession of their belief in the ‘scriptures, “you 
would'not admit to church fellowship ‘such characters’ as 
mentioned above, I have gained my point. The utility and 
necessity of creeds and confessions follow’ of: course ; and 
all your reasoning falls to the ground, or’may be easily re- 
torted. A Nicolaitane, fur instance, applies'to ‘yow for ad- 
mission. You inform him, that ‘he’ cannot be admitted,’ so 
long as he pleads for a community of wives. He replies, 
that in the days of the apostles, they had aij’ things common. 
You begin to explain this portion, and to point out the 
absurdity of his opinion. He answers: «The Bible: is my 
éreed. I am willing to subscribe the ‘word of: God ; HT 
am willing to ‘seal it with ‘my ‘blood : but’ I am not 
‘willing to subscribe your doctrines or opinions. The bible 
is infallible; your opinions are fallible—if_ God’s word 
be an infallible standard, can you add to infallibility? ‘The 
word of God is a perfect rule; measure me by that; but 


\ 


t2ah it} 


267 


Y will not submit to be measured by the imperfect rule of 
_ your opinions. ‘No man, or body of men, has a right to 
prescribe any other terms of communion between Christ 
_ and me, than those which he himself hath prescribed ; which 
‘terms are a belief in his doctrines as contained in Revela- 
tion. ' Nay, further, however innocent you may presume 
‘yourself to be, you are guilty of rebellion against the person 
of Christ, as the king: and head of the church, and of pre- 
- @umptuously making additions. to that which he has pro- 
nounced perfect. You might as well set up acandle, when 
the sun is in his splendour, as your opinion, where the gos- 
pel shines. You should never dare to dictate to me, what I 
am to believe. Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who 
art thou 2” io Pig on ad 
Thus, Sir, you see that a Nicolaitane, or any other person 
af erroneous principles, when refused admission, might, in 
‘your own words, retort upon you all your invectives against 
creeds and confessions. The reason is obvious : the moment 
you refuse admission to any person on account of his tenets, 
you are, by your own acknowledgment, setting up ‘* your 
conscience against his conscience, your opinion against his 
opinion. You are setting up your interpretation.of scripture, 
as the confession, of his faith—as a creed to measure his 
‘onscience. You area fallible, uninspired man, as liable 
and likely to mistake and wrest the true sense of scripture, 
as any of those for whom you are contriving tests, and ex- 
cluding under the name of heretics: and yet, fallible and 
uninspired as you are, we must suppose you to be wiser and 
more merciful than God, and capable of delivering his mind 
and will in terms more clear, express, and unexceptionable, 
than Jesus Christ himself.—Still farther ; if the Nicolaitane 
is willing to subscribe the scriptures, though in an unscrip- 
tural sense, what then, I ask, should hinder him from sub- 
scribing your interpretation in the same manner ? If he will 
deal treacherously with the words of God, why not much 
more so with the words of man ?”’—with the words of the 
Rev. Presbyterian ? 
Thus, Sir, you see the dilemma in which you are involved. 
If, upon their simple profession of faith in the scriptures, 
you refuse to admit persons of the most impious and abomi- 
nable principles, you have given up your cause; you are 
acting upon;the principles of creeds and confessions. All 
_ your own reasoning recoils upon yourself; and I may justly 
address you in the words of the apostle. Therefore, thou 


268 


art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; 
for wherein thou judgest ‘another thou condemnest thyself, 
for thou that judgest dost the same things. : 

But, if, on the contrary, you say, that upon their ac- 
knowledgment of the scriptures, you would admit persons 
of all descriptions, however immoral, impious, and abomi- 
nable their principles—and particularly, that you would 
admit the Nicolaitane mentioned above, you stand reproved 
by the Spirit of God, Rey. ii. 14—17, “« But I have a few 
things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold 
the doctrine of, Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stum- 
bling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacri- 
ficed to idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also 
them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which 
thing I hate.’’ Read the words of your Redeemer in the 16th 
verse, and tremble as you read : ‘* Repent or else I will come 
unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the 
sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear let him hear what 
the spirit saith unto the churches,’’. Were it necessary I might 
quote a variety of other texts, in which the previous Lati- 
tudinarian principle.is condemned ; but till once some person 
appear in public, bold enough to avow that principle, I 
shall not proceed any farther in its refutation, 

The principles of Latitudinarians stand condemned by 
- common sense, as well as by the word of God; for how 

can two walk together except they be agreed ?* , 


* Notwithstanding the abuse you have poured upon Layman for 
quoting this text in favour of creeds and testimonies, I haye ventured 
to commit the same crime. In this verse, and those that follow, the 
premises only are laid down; they are all incontrovertible truths, dic- 
tates of common sense. The literal meaning of the text quoted is, 
How can two men walk together except they be agreed? The conclu- 
sion to be inferred is, therefore how can God and his people walk togeth- 
er, &c. The validity of the conclusion depends upon the truth of the 
premises—upon the truth of that maxim, ‘* That no twomen can walk 
together, except they are agreed.”—-Your commentary on the text 
concludes thus: What folly to rub the dust off our bibles, while weonly 
read half sentences! My dear Sir, did you really believe that the text 
was a half sentence? or did you wish to impose that belief upon Lay- 
man ? Djd you really think, that the hue and cry you had raised in the 
beginning of the paragraph, together with the notes of admiration ap- 
pended to the end of it, would terrify Layman out of his senses, so that 
he would be unable to distinguish between a half sentence and a whole 
one ? Trust me, dear Sir, we should not calculate too much on the’ 
stupidity of laymen. Some centuries ago, their confidence in the ipse 
dixit of a clergyman was much more implicit thanitis at present. Of 


269 


How can thousands and tens of thousands whose princi 
ples and practices are the most heterogeneous, discordant, 
and opposite—as opposite as light and darkness, Christ and: 
Belial—how can thousands and millions of such characters 
walk together in love and peace? Sooner may we expect 
to see wolves and lambs, leopards and kids, foxes and 
geese, laying aside their natural antipathies, and uniting in 
one amicable and harmonious commonwealth ! 
~ It must be confessed, however, that though Latitudinarian 
principles are inconsistent with scripture and common sense ; 
they are nevertheless perfectly consistent with themselves. 
If persons of all descriptions, upon the adoption of the bible 
as their creed, ought to be admitted to church fellowship, 
it follows, of course, that human creeds and confessions 
fall to the ground. ; ) 

Nor is it at all strange, that men of corrupt minds, who — 
walk in craftiness, handle the word of God deceitfully, 
and corrupt the Gospel of Christ—it is not at all strange, 
that such characters should cordially hate, and vigorously 
oppose, all creeds and confessions. Those who bring in 
damnable heresies, the apostle assures us, do it privily ; 
they ‘ creep in unawares.”’ But creeds and confessions tear _ 
off the mask, and expose to public odium those, who, by 
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, lie in wait to. 
deceive. To suchmen, creeds and confessions are no less 
odious, than locks and bars to nightly depredators. Such 
characters, I say, in their opposition to creeds and confes- 
sions, act consistently, and as might be expected. But 
creeds and confessions are opposed by vast numbers of a. 
very different description—by individuals, and by commu- 
nities, strongly attached to the doctrines of the gospel, and 
firmly resolved, not to open the doors of the church for the 
reception of those, whom they regard as heretical. Such 
characters do themselves, what they condemn in others.— 
Between them and the advocates of creeds and confessions 
the difference is merely circumstantial. Whenever they 
exclude an erroneous person, they do it on the principle of 
a creed, as we have already observed. They exclude him, 


Nts 


late, they appear very much in the habit of thinking for themselves. 
And, indeed, it must be confessed, that to see the Jaymap- walking in 
the path of common sense, whilst the clergyman is wandering from jt, 
and completely bewildered, is no uncommon case. RAGE: 


Q3* ' 


270 


not because he refuses to profess his faith in the scriptures, 

but because, they conceive he has not correct views of the 

Scriptures. Their own views are exhibited to him as. a con- — 
fession of faith, which he is requested to subscribe. If he 

cannot acquiesce in these views, he is refused admission. 

For instance, if he refuse to profess his faith in the su- 

preme deity of the Redeemer—his atonement—the depra- 
vity of nature—the efficacy of grace, &c. he cannot be 

admitted. Now all these doctrines, be they what they may, 

are so many articles of their creed. The difference be- 

tween it and ours, (as I have already observed,) is merely 

circumstantial, and the balance appears decidedly in our 

favour. Theirs is a verbal creed, ours a printed one.— 

Theirs private, ours public. Theirs exhibited by obscure 

individuals, ours by a learned and venerable assembly of 
divines. Every candidate for admission with us, has an 

opportunity of examining our creed at. his leisure. He 

may pause, ponder, sift, and compare every article with the 

word of God. In joining those who have no public creed 

he has not this privilege. He has not the same advantage 

for becoming acquainted with the principles of those into 

whose society he is about to enter. Of course, the union 

cannot be supposed so complete, nor the communion so 

comfortable. 

To the reasoning employed in the preceding pages, it may 
be objected, that I have not attempted to prove the neces- 
sity or utility of creeds and confessions from the word of 
God. In reply to this objection, I would observe, that if 
the Latitudinarian scheme, which I have in the preceding 
pages, endeavoured to expose, stands condemned by the 
word of God, it follows, of course, that crceds and con-. 
fessions, by the same divine word, are fully recognised and 
established. Between the Latitudinarian scheme, and the 
adoption of creeds and confessions, I have endeavoured 
to prove that there is no medium. — It necessarily follows, 
that the condemnation of the one, is the recognition and 
establishment of the other. Should this answer, to persons. 
accustomed to close thinking, appear not altogether satis- 
factory, in confirmation of it I would ask a few questions. 
Are we not commanded to reject a heretic? Were not 
the Asiatic churches reprimanded for not excluding erro- 
neous persons? Are we not commanded to speak the 
same things? to be perfectly joined together in. the same 
mind and the same judgment, &c.? Now, sir; I presume 


271 


it will be a task too hard for you, or any man, to show, how it 
is possible to obey these injunctions, upon any other prin- 
ciple, than that of the adoption of creeds and confessions. 
If we throw open the door of the church for the reception 
of persons of the most opposite, jarring and heretical opi- 
nions, it is evident, we do so in direct violation of the 
above mentioned precepts: -on the other hand, if we ex- 
clude any, on account of their opinions, we must do it by 
acreed. Our views of scripture are a creed, and we ex- 
clude them because they do not acquiesce in these views. 
It follows, of course, that if we have any authority in scrip- 
ture for the exclusion of heretical persons, we have. the 
Same authority for the use of a creed ; because it is only 
by a creed that any person can possibly be excluded. Our 
creed may be a verbal one, a written one, or a printed one, 
(the difference is not essential, ) but still it is only by the 
medium of a creed we can possibly obey the above scrip- 
ture precepts. 
1 am, Sir, a notorious creed-monger : but, at the same 
time, ie 
) Your sincere friend, 
And very humble servant, 
JOHN PAUL, 


LETTER III. 


Rev. and dear Sir, 

Having, in the preceding letter, from principles. both 
of scripture and reason, endeavoured to prove, not only 
the utility, but also the necessity of creeds and confessions, 
I shall in the present, briefly advert to a few of the most 
plausible things you have. said-in Opposition to the cause 
which I advocate. 

Page 19, you conclude, that ‘ when there are twenty 
different. confessions, nineteen of them must be wrong,” 
With equal force of reasoning, you might infer that when 
there are twenty pictures, (suppose of Bonaparte) nineteen. 
of them must be, badly executed, and only one of them a 
true likeness. . Nay, farther, if such a mode of reasoning 
be legitimate, the blasphemous, consequence would follow, 


AY 


that only one of the four gospels contains a true biographi- 
cal account of our blessed Redeemer! Creeds may be dif- 
ferent, but not opposite: notwithstanding apparent or cir- 
cumstantial differences, there may be, upon the sbi an 
astonishing agreement. 

Page 24, you reason thus: «‘ But let us suppose ‘the ut- 
mrost, that your human cfeed, or test, whatever it may be, 
contains the true sense of scripture, yet still it is incompre- 
hensible how i should be any remedy against heresy, or 
any means of detecting the heretic more than the scriptures 
themselves. » Heretics, you allow, will readily subscribe the 
scriptures, though in an unscriptural sense ; and what then, 
T ask, should hinder them from subscribing human creeds 
and tests in the same manner? If they will deal treach- 
erously with the word of God, why not much more so with 
the words of men! !” 

This argument, being a remarkable one, you very wisely 
set off by two notes of admiration. With reverence and 
awe let us approach it! When you talk of heretics deal- 
ing treacherously with the word of God, what do you mean ? 
Do you mean that all heretics are hypocrites—that they do 
wot believe what they profess—that they do not believe their 
tenets to be founded on the word of God? If this be your 
meaning, allow me to inform you that a bigoted Covenanter 
is more liberal in his ideas respecting heresy, than the Rev. 
Presbyterian. If it is essential to the character of a here- 
tic that he is condemned of his own conscience, he never 
could be known, and of course could never be rejected. 
Would a heretic tell the world that he was acting in oppo- 
sition to the dictates of conscience? It would be absurd 
to suppose it. How then could any person ascertain 
the fact? It would be impossible. The truth is, that, 
however false and erroneous the tenets of heretics, we have 
no reason to imagine that they do not believe them. On 
the contrary, we are assured by the highest authority, that 
because men receive not the love of the truth, for this cause 
God gives them over to strong delusions—to believe lies. 
Their tenets are lies ; but they actually believe them. They 
believe them to be founded on the word of God ; and, there- 
fore, they can profess their. faith in the scriptures without 
any violation of the dictates of conscience. With regard 
to a human creed, the case may be different. We shall 
illustrate by an example. Suppose a person, such as Hy- 
meneus, Philetus, or one of the Corinthian «gaa applies 


273 


to you for admission. You ask him what he believes con- 
cerning the resurrection? He replies that he believes what 
the scriptures teach on that subject. You inquire still far- 
ther, do you believe that the dead bodies of men, both of 
the righteous and the wicked, shall, at the last day, be 
raised from their graves, and united to their souls, never 
more to be ‘separated ? He answers, 1 believe no such 
thing—lI believe that. the resurrection mentioned in scrip- 
ture is to be understood in a spiritual or mystical sense ; 
all that is intended by itis only a resurrection from sin, &c. 
This, I believe, is what the scripture teaches. The scrip- 
tural account I am willing to subscribe ; but I will not sub- 
scribe your creed. — se 5 

Thus, my dear Sir, it appears to me quite easy to con- 
ceive how a human creed might shut the door of the church 
against a heretic, whilst the scriptures themselves would be ~ 
no obstruction. Indeed, I acknowledge, that when the 
tide of self-interest sets strongly in, creeds, confessions, 
scripture and conscience, frequently prove but feeble bar- 
riers. The exclusion of such characters will always be 
found difficult in proportion to the temptations of wealth and 
agerandizement. No wonder, therefore, ifthe English esta- 
blishment answer the laconic description of Pitt: “‘ A Cal- — 
vinistic creed, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy.” 
In a word, it is not creeds, but royal emoluments, that 
make men deal treacherously with the words both of God 
and man. 

Page 18th, Covenanter asks: ‘: Do you not honestly 
think that it is necessary for men to be on their guard with 
respect to the solemn subject of religion?’ To this you 
reply : «‘ Most assuredly I do: and as these subjects will 
not run out of the bible more than the stars out of the 
heavens, we should imitate the example of navigators, who 
never steer by a blaze, and always endeavour to make ad- 
vances in science by viewing the heavenly bodies as they 
are arranged by God, and not as they are fancied to be by 
this man or that. All aid is fair ; but whatever the systems 
be, they will best appear in the volume of nature, which 
cannot be touched, and the volume of revelation, which 
ought not to be assorted. Hach object will appear best in 
its own situation ; and the moment you remove it to any 
other, it becomes deformed, and leaves a breach behind. 

Take, for example, a particular verse out of one of the gos- 
_ pels, and who can tell its meaning by itself, or discover the 


274 


sense of the whole, once it is removed 2”? But why, my 
dear Sir, did you dismiss this paragraph without the usual 
insignia ? If the former one was judged: worthy of two 
notes of admiration, surely this was fully entitled to at least 
half a dozen. In the commencement of it ‘you talk of sub- 


jects running out of the bible, and stars running out of the 


heavens—a very remarkable race indeed! The Olympic 
course never exhibited one so interesting. You then inform 
us, that we should imitate the example of navigators, who 


never steer by a blaze. If this be so, then down with all | 


light-houses.. You next assure us, that navigators always 
endeavour to make advances in science by viewing the 
heavenly bodies as they are arranged by God, and not.as 
they are fancied to be by this man or that. Pray sir, is 
there a single navigator on the face of the earth who is no 
way indebted to human systems? When once you have 
convinced the world of the impropriety of studying naviga- 
tion by the help of books and systems—when. once you 
have persuaded navigators to throw away these helps, and 
to study the art merely by consulting the volume of nature ; 
then let creeds and confessions be for ever exploded, and 
let the bible and the volume of nature be the only two books 
in the universe !—But, ‘« O,’’ says the Rev. Presbyterian, 
_“ all aid is fair.” A very candid confession indeed! It is 
alll ask. Indeed it is much more than I could have possi- 
bly expected. All aid is fair; then doubtless the aid of 
creeds and confessions is fair. Ifall aid is fair in studying 
the volume of nature, why not in studying the volume of 
revelation? My dear sir, had you duly considered the im» 
port of these four monosyllables, « ail aid is fair,”’ you would 
have thrown down your arms, and the Battle of Dialogues 
had never been fought, But the Rev. Presbyterian is not 
so easily driven off the field. As if my friend had made no 
concession, with undaunted courage he proceeds to observe, 
“whatever the system be, they will best appear in the vo- 
lume of nature which cannot be touched, and the volume 
of Revelation which ought not to be assorted.” But, in 
the name of common sense, what does my friend mean by 
the volume of nature which cannot be touched? Of this 
new volume. I solemnly declare, that down to the present 
moment, I have never heard one single syllable. It is only 
with the old volume of nature which can be touched that I 
am acquainted. This old volume, Sir, according to my 
dyll apprehension, we all touch—we cannot avoid touching 


275 


for we are living in constant contact with it. Nay, more; 
of this old tangible volume both the Rev. Presbyterian, and 
his humble servant, are constituent parts. ! 
- Philosophieally remarking, that the volume of nature 
cannot be touched, and theologically observing, that’ the 
volume of reyelation ought not to be assorted, you assure 
us, that whatever the systems be, they will best appear in 
these two volumes. Here again, I must confess my ignio- 
rance. I must candidly acknowledge, that I never before 
knew, that any system, but the true ones, would appear 
_ best, either in the volume of nature or revelation. Accord- 
ing to you, it is no matter what these systems are, whether 
they be true or false ; you assure us that whatever they be, 
they will best appear in these two volumes. Pray, Sir, do 
you really think, and are you perfectly sure, that not only 
the Copernican or Newtonian system ; but that the old ex- 
ploded systems of Ptolemy and Des Cartes, will best appear 
in the Volume of nature? Do you really believe, that the 
Socinian, Arian, Arminian, Calvinistic, Antinomian sys 
tems—nay, that all the systems of divinity, that ever were 
written, will best appear in the volume of Revelation? If © 
you believe all this, (and you have boldly asserted it) you 
are much more credulous thau any of the advocates of 
creeds and confessions. They really believe, that various 
" systems, exhibited both by philosophers and divines, are so 
far from appearing best in the volumes of nature and Reve- 
lation, that they do not appear in those volumes at all, 
Nay, farther ; they verily believe, that many of those sys 
tems have no existence in nature, but only in the bewilder- 
ed imaginations of their blinded votaries. : 
With great sagacity you go on to observe, that <‘each 
object will appear best in its own situation, and the mo- 
ment you remove it to any other it becomes deformed, 
and leaves a breach’ behind.” That each of the stars. 
planets, &c. appears best in the situation assigned to it by 
the Almighty, I readily admit; but how it would appear, 
when removed from that situation, Iam not at present pre- 
pared to say. You assure us that it would appear deform. 
ed—it may be so. Covenanters, not being <* great astrom 
-omers,”’ have not yet begun to pluck the planets from 
their orbits.” Of course, I can'say very little on this sub- 


~ feet. 


- - But) when you talk of removing objects from one sitrra- 
tion to another, perhaps you mean not stars or planets, but 
i : 


276 | 


objects in this lower world : Your language indeed implies’ 
both ; but, as we cannot always ascertain your meaning 
from your words, perhaps you had no thought of removing 
a star or planet, but only terrestrial objects, such as trees, 
flowers, stones, &&c. Now, my dear sir, do youreally think, 
that trees and flowers become deformed, in consequence: 
of their removal from the forest to the orchard or flower 
garden? Dostones become deformed, when removed from 
the quarry to occupy a place in the splendid edifice? Say, 
ye botanists, ye florists, and ye architects, is this doctrine 
true? is it true, that the moment ye remove any object 
from its own situation to another, it becomes deformed ? 
If so—on the face of this globe can ye find no better em- 
ployment, than to render deformed the works of your 
Maker ! 

_The truth is, that in Astronomy, Natural history, Botany, 
Chemistry—in every department of science and of art, 
classification and arrangement are absolutely necessary. 
In every branch of literature the necessity of systematic 
arrangement is universally felt. Even to the Rev. Presby- 
terian himself, the hero who fought the Battle of Dialogues, 

I would recommend a little more attention to classification 

and arrangement. The Duke of Wellington will inform 

him, that, without strict attention to order and arrange 

ment, he had never gained the victory in the Battle of 
Waterloo; and I can assure my friend, that unless in all 

his future military operations he display more attention to 

order than formerly, he needs never dream of conquering 

the Westminster Divines. . 

_ _ My Rey. and dear Presbyterian, I do not think it strange, 

that you oppose classification—(I do not mean clerical clas- 

sification, or the classification of regium donum,)—I do not 

think it strange, that you oppose classification, both in theory 

and practice ; for, to be candid, I am afraid you have not 
asingle correct ideaon the subject. Do you reallyimagine, 

that there can be no such thing as classification or arrange- 

ment without removing objects from their own situation to 

another, and leaving a breach behind? Is it not possible, 

for instance, to classify the stars or planets without plucking. 
' them from their respective systems, rendering them deform- 

ed, and leaving a breach behind them ? In like manner, is it 

not possible to quote texts of scripture, and to classify and 

arrange those texts, without rendering them deformed, and 

leaving a breach in the sacred volume? ‘*'Take, for exam- 


Q277 


ple,”’ say you, ‘a particular verse out of one of the gospels, 
and who can tell its meaning by itself, or discover the sense 
of the whole, once it is removed?” I confess, my dear friend, 
‘that I do not like this example at all. “Take a particular 
verse out of one of the Gospels.’” {No, sir, I would not take a 
particular verse out of one of the Gospels forthe whole world. 
For, “<ifany man take away from the words of the book of this 
prophecy, God. will take away his part out of the book of 
life.” Indeed, my dear Sir, could any person be found im- 
pious enough to make the sacrilegious experiment which 
you recommend—could any person be found, who would 
take away a part of the scriptures, I perfectly agree with 
you, that it would be difficult, nay impossible, to discover 
the sense of the whole, that part being removed. But does 
your Reverence really imagine, that any of the advocates of 
creeds and confessions have it in contemplation to take 
away a part of the sacred volume, and to leave mankind to 
guess the meaning of the remainder ? . Trust me, dear sir, 
you need not be in the least apprehensive. In reducing 
divine truths into a system, all that is necessary is the liberty 
of quotation. There is no necessity of taking a single text 
out of the bible. 

But perhaps you will say, that by taking a particular text 
out of one of the Gospels, all you intended was the quota- 
tion of that text. Now, if this was your intention, why. do 
you talk of the difficulty of ascertaining the meaning of the 
whole, when that text is removed? The text, upon this 
principle, is not removed... The whole of the portion from 
which you quote, is the same after as before quotation ; and, 
of course, the discovery of its meaning equally easy. . 

With regard to the text quoted, you ask, who can tell its 
meaning by itself? Now, my dear friend, if there be any 
difficulty here, the weight of it: falls on your own head, 
Page 25, at the top, you have (to use your own perspicu- 
ous phrase) taken a verse out of one of the Gospels :. you 
have quoted Matthew, xv. 9.. «+ But in vain do they. wor- 
ship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”* 
Pray, sir, who can tell the meaning of this text by itself? 
For what purpose then did you quote it? Is it not become 
deformed by being removed from its own situation to occupy 
a place in your Dialogue? Has it not left a breach behind © 
it? and who can discover the meaning of the: whole, now 
itis removed? The inconsistency of your: principles. and 
Practice here reminds me of Berkely the sceptic, who, by a 

: 24 


278 


close chain of reasoning, endeavoured to prove that all reas 


soning was inconclusive. ‘That subtle genius unfortunately. 
forgot, that if all reasoning were inconclusive, his own rea- 
soning, by which he was endeavouring to establish that 
point, must, by consequence, go for nothing. Alas! how 
inconsistent a creature is man! Even men of the greatest 
talents, when once they have wandered out of the path of 
common sense, soon run into the grossest absurdities. 
Before you sent your pamphlet to the press, had you 
carefully perused it, you might have perccived, that it is not 


merely in your animadversions on the quotations of a single — 


text, that you have contradicted yourself: but also in your 
observations on the quotation and arrangement of various 
texts. You condemn the quotation of numerous portions 
of Scripture adduced in proof of the different articles of the 
confession of faith. You assure us, that it would have been 
much fairer and more convenient, to have had the whole of 
Revelation before us. Now, in pages 24 and 25, you have 
quoted no fewer than seven portions of scripture. You 
have arranged them according to your own taste, in an order 
quite different from that in which they stand in the sacred 
volume. Pray, sir, had you reflected for a moment, might 
you not have easily perceived, that any person might retort 
your own arguments in your own words, thus: «+ It would 
be much fairer and more convenient, to have the whole of 
Revelation before us. I cannot see how you will carry the 
principles of the bible out of the bible, so as to give them 
greater force. Jf any man can arrange them more conspi- 
cuously than the Holy Spirit, he will then prove his superior 
wisdom in communicating the knowledge of the truth. Itis 
a strange compliment to revelation; to suppose, that though 
it should fail in establishing its own sufficiency and perfec- 
tion, yet these doctrines are so methodically arranged in the 
Battle of Dialogues, as fully to accomplish that end.”’ Thus, 
gir, you see, that the readers of your dialogue might, inyour 


own words, retort your own arguments—in the language of © 


the ancient proverb, they might sarcastically address you : 
« Physician, heal thyself!” es 
The truth is, that between the volumes of nature and 
Revelation there is a very. striking analogy. In the volume 
of nature, objects are not arranged according to genus and 
species. ‘Trees, animals, &c. of all descriptions, are pro- 
miscuously blended. ‘To assist us in acquiring the know- 


ledge of these objects, men of learning and science have — 


di 


279 


classified and arranged them. In botany, how great the 
utility of the system of Linneus? In the study of natural 
history, how much are we indebted to the systematic pro- 
ductions of a Goldsmith and a Buffon? The case is quite 
similar with regard to the volume of divine revelation. The 
truths relating to the same subject, are not all contained in 
the same chapter or the same book. They are not systema- 
tically arranged, but promiscuously blended. In the study 
of those sacred oracles, as ‘all aid is fair,’ compends of 
Christian doctrine, creeds, confessions, catechisms, &c. 

are of admirable use. Itis true, indeed, they may be abused, 
as the best of things are; but this is no argument against 
their utility. ‘T'o deprive us of those means so remakably 
calculated to facilitate our progress in scripture knowledge, 
is certainly a mode of discovering our respect for the scrip- 
tures, extremely worthy of modern illumination! Warmly 
attached to systematic arrangement, both in philosophy 
and divinity, I am, dear Sir, 

i Yours, &c. 


‘ LETTER IV. 
Rev. and dear Sir, 

Wishing always to give honour where honour is due, 
1 must acknowledge that your language is appropriate when 
you assure us that the Synod of Ulster have decently laid 
aside the confession of faith. In giving up that confession, 
if your account be correct, the general Synod have pro- 
_ ceeded very decently indeed. ‘They have given it up, not 
_ ~all at once, but gradually: first, by the pacific act; next 
by a resolution founded upon that'act ; then by using it in 
such a qualified manner as to render it a mere name—a 
piece of appearance ; and lastly, by scarcely mentioning it 
at all, in cases of license and ordination. The whole of 
this procedure all must acknowledge to be highly decent 
and respectful. ‘That the Westminster confession is so 
decently laid aside, you seem to glory; and indeed no 
wonder, if our subordinate standards have been set up, as 
you insinuate—‘‘ to supersede the scriptures, to rival their 
splendour, and to divert the attention of mankind from their - 


280 


_ perfection.”’ If such be their actual tendency, they should 
have been laid aside long ere now—they should have béen 
laid aside, not decently, but with the greatest contempt.. 
With the national covenant and the solemn league, they 
should have been burned by the hands of the common hang- 
man. But, my dear Sir, do not candour and justice say, 
that before these standards are condemned, they should be 
fairly tried and found guilty? ‘Tell me, Sir, has the use of 
the confession of faith actually produced those evils you so. 
much dread and deprecate? Or has the laying of it aside 
been attended by a great augmentation of respect for the 
scriptures ? Is family worship more punctually performed ? 
Are the sacred oracles more frequently read? Are they 
daily read, morning and evening, by the heads of families ? 
Are they daily read even in the families of clergymen, and 
particularly those clergymen who decry all creeds and con- 
fessions, who are enemies to the doctrines of the West- 
minster confession, and extol the perfection and infallibility 
of Scripture? Are both clergymen.and laymen more -in 
the habit of associating in fellowship meetings for the pur- 
pose of reading the word of God, and conversing on its 
sacred contents; of addressing the throne of grace; of 
teaching and exhorting each other in psalms, hymns, and 
spiritual songs, singing and making melody in their hearts 
unto the Lord?- Where are now those days when the 
houses of your pious ancestors, both laymen and clergymen, 
resounded with the praises of their Creator and Redeemer? 
when a portion of the divine word was publicly read 
every morning and evening in the families of many ?—when 
fainily prayers, like clouds of incense, daily ascended the 
throne of the Most High?—when, on the mornings and 
evenings of Christian sabbaths, our towns and cities were 
rendered vocal by the chanting of divinely-inspired an- 
thems? ‘* How is the gold become dim, and the fine gold 
changed !”? Say, my dear Sir, has not the laying aside of 
the confession of faith been followed up by a correspond- 
ing dereliction of the most sacred duties ?—of family wor- 
ship, social worship, reading the word of God, teaching and 
admonishing one another in psalms and hymns, and spiri- 
tual songs, singing and making melody in the heart unto 
the Lord ? I trust, however, that’the neglect of those duties, 
though mournfully prevalent, is not universal. I hope, nay 
I firmly believe, there are exceptions, honourable excep- 
tions, both among the laity and the clergy of your com- 


ts 


4 * op. 
Fe ee Ek, ia a a ee 


a CP a tt ee ee 


oy, 


SA eal EF a obs 


Se os AS inte ha 5. 


281 


munity—men of piety and zeal, who strain every nerve 
to stem the torrent of defection, who exert all their en- 
ergies to revive the practice of those sacred duties. 
But who are those men? Are they not generally at- 
tached to the confession of faith, or at least to the 
doctrines of that ancient volume? Tell me also, my 
dear sir, who are most forward in excluding from their 
psalmody the divinely inspired compositions of scripture ?. 
Who are most forward in substituting for the psalms of 
David, hymns, paraphrases, &&c. the productions of unin- 
-spired and fallible men? Is it by the friends or the enemies 
of the confession that the dictates of revelation are thus 
- sacrilegiously shuffled out, and supplanted? Where are 
now all your fears for the ark of God? Are you no way 
alarmed lest our fine modern poetic effusions *‘ supersede 
the sacred oracles,”’ ‘‘ rival their splendour,”’ and ‘ divert 
the attention of mankind from their perfection?” Have 
not those who were most forward in laying aside the con- 
fession of faith, been also the most forward in giving up, 
and decently laying aside, the psalms of David? With what 
decency and decorum do our modern reformers proceed in 
this business! . First, a few paraphrases are occasionally 
sung ; next, a few, hymns of human composition ; then the 
psalms of David are culled, the cursing ones, (as they are 
called, or rather miscalled,) entirely rejected, and a few of 
the better sort sung alternately with the hymns of Watts, 
Newton or Cowper ; afterwards this selection is used so 
sparingly as to render it a mere name—a piece of appear- 
ance! and lastly, these sacred hymns are scarcely ever 
mentioned in public worship. How gratifying to think 
that the psalms of David are likely to obtain so decent a 
funeral ! But, again: © 

Tell me, dear sir, who are most forward in excluding 
from public schools the sacred oracles? Solomon once 
thought it a dictate of wisdom to train up a child in the 
way he should go ; but in thisit appears he was completely 
mistaken ; for we have now discovered, in this age of rea- 
son, that an early religious education is highly injurious 
that it has a tendency to fill the mind with prejudices and 
prepossessions, to bias it in favour of a system, and ulti. 
mately to destroy all freedom of inquiry. We have, there- 
. fore, wisely excluded the scriptures from our seminaries of 
education. Our children must not be allowed to read these 
sacred oracles, lest too much familiarity should breed con- 


* 


- 282 


a 


tempt. Their young and tender minds must be left, like 
the sluggard’s garden, overrun with noxious weeds, in or- 
der to prepare them for the good seed of the word of God! 

The enemy must be allowed time to sow his tares before the 
_ good husbandman be permitted to plant his wheat! In re- 
spect for the scriptures these modern illuminati are only 
one step behind the old mother church. To prevent their 
being abused, they have only to lock them up from the laity 
altogether! Speak out, my dear sir, and inform the public 
by what class of Christians the bible is thus betrayed with 
a kiss—whether by the advocates of creeds and confessions, 
or those Latitudinarians who oppose these standards, be- 
cause they cordially hate their contents. Inform the world 
by what class of Christians the bible is most read, studied, 
_ and respected—whether by the friends or enemies of the 
Westminster confession and its doctrines. .By what class 
of Christians is the plenary inspiration of the Bible denied, 
and the Old Testament Scriptures represented as an anti- 
quated almanac ? : 

After the confession of faith, psalms of David, &c. the 
next thing to be laid aside is that code of discipline which 
our blessed Redeemer has established in his word. The 
various articles of this code will be found in different de- 
partments of the New Testament. A number of those ar- 
ticles we shall here exhibit in one view: 

_  “ Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go 

and tell him of his fault between thee and him alone: if he 
shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother ; but if he will 
not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in 
the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be esta- 
blished; and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto 
the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him 
be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. But now 
I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man 
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an 
idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner 3 with 
such an one, no, not to eat. Now we command you, 
brethern,.in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disor- 
derly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 


And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note . 


that man, and have no company with him, that he may be 
ashamed ; yet count him not as an enemy; but entreat him 
as a brother. Against an.elder receive not an accusation, 
but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin, rebuke 


rn ~F ” 
iN re 


ce, em 


a 


283 


before all, that others also may fear. A man that is an. 
heretic after the first-and second admonition, reject, &c.’?. 
Such, my dear sir, is a specimen of that code of discip- _ 
line handed down in the New Testament by our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the king and head of the church. ‘Such are the im- 
mutable laws which the Redeemer himself has established, 
and which you have presumed to supersede and alter. Out 
of your own mouth you stand condemned ; for, page 20, 
you say : “If the constitution and laws of the church be 
fixed by Christ himself, I know not how any man can take 


the liberty to supersede or alter them.” Now, sir, you are 


the very man who has taken the liberty to supersede and 
alter the laws of Christ ; for, in page 23, you assure us, 
‘« that though the doctrines should remain as they came 
from Heaven, yet the discipline may be varied as circum 
stances require.”” Nay, sir, you have dared to supersede 
_ the Redeemer’s code of discipline by a civil code—a code 
which may be necessary in one age, but unnecessary in 
another—a code which, you candidly confess, has no more 
foundation in the word of God, than the hour for public 
worship. Thus, sir, you have laid aside, not decently, but 
rudely and presumptuously, the disciplinary laws of your 
exalted Redeemer! In the room of those laws, you have 
set up a civil, unauthenticated, fluctuating code, from 
which, even to the word of God, you will not allow so much 
as even the privilege of appeal! Let us hear your own 
words : ‘« Iven where human standards of doctrines exist, 
the appeal will always be made to Revelation ; but in codes 
of discipline, the appeal must be made to the code itself.’’ 
Say now, my dear friend, and let all the world judge, whether 
you, or the advocates of creeds and confessions, are most 
sincerely attached to the sacred oracles. With them, you 
candidly grant, the last appeal is to revelation; but with 
you, the laws of Christ are a dead letter; they are com 
pletely superseded : from your fluctuating code there is no 
appeal ! 
Is this, my dear sir, the result of all your flaming profes- 
sions of respect for the scriptures? Are you the clergy- 
man who declared himself unwilling to be measured by any 
ather rule, but the perfect one of divine revelation? Are 
you the Rev. Presbyterian who was so much afraid of set- 
_ ting up any human standard, lest it might supersede the 
word of God, rival its splendour, or divert the attention of 
men from its perfection ?—and yet, after all, without shame 


284 


or remorse, by one stroke, you sweep away the whole of 
that divinely inspired code of disciplinary laws established 
by the blessed Redeemer of men! In all this, (to use 
your own words) ‘* however innocent you may presume 
yourself to be, you are guilty of rebellion against the per- 
son of Christ as the head of the church.’’ 
The church and the world are distinct societies—the one 
- is an enclosure, the other a common. In scripture the 
church is represented by a walled city, a field, a vineyard, 
a garden enclosed, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. It 
is the will of heaven, that the distinction between the church 
and the world should be perpetually kept up—that the 
church’s enclosure should remain for ever inviolable. This 
distinction was established by the Almighty himself, when 
there was only one family on the face of the earth. Cain, 
as unworthy of church privileges, was excommunicated by 
his Maker, banished from the presence of the Lord, and ex- 


cluded from the fellowship of the saints. This was the - 


first partition wall built between the church and the world. 
The breaking down of this wall was the cause of the de- 
luge. The church of God, mingling with the excommuni- 
cated offspring of Cain, rapidly degenerated, till the earth 
was filled with violence, and till (Noah and his family ex- 
cepted,) all flesh were corrupted, and the flood came, and 
swept them all away. 

Every person knows, that the Jewish church was a com- 
plete enclosure. Subjected to a code of discipline remark- 
ably rigorous, by a middle wall of partition she was sepa- 
rated from the world. If, at any time, she suffered her 
walls of discipline to be broken down, she was severely 
reprimanded and chastised. Her priests, if guilty in this 
matter, were degraded ; whilst those who were faithful ob- 
tained the highest encomiums; and were encouraged to 
persevere, and to teach the people of God the difference 
between the holy and the profane, and to cause them to dis- 
cern between the clean and the unclean. Relaxation of 
discipline was uniformly accompanied by a corresponding 
relaxation of morals, and was always followed by alarming 
visitations of Providence. pa 

Under the gospel dispensation, the middle wall of parti- 
tion between Jews and Gentiles.is broken down, but not 
that wall. which separates the church from the world. In 
the New Testament scriptures quoted above, anda variety 
of others, the. separating: lines are distinctly drawn. Per- 


sons of heretical opinions, or immoral character, have no- 
right to be recognised as Christians. We are commanded 
to reject them—to treat them as heathen men and publi- 
cans—to have no company with them, that they may be © 
ashamed. A sense of shame is a powerful principle. Its 
influence is incalculable. Henee we find, that the laws of 
honour are frequently obeyed, whilst the laws of the state 
are treated with contempt. Now, if a sense of shame 
aperate so powerfully in securing obedience to the laws of 
honour, falsely so called—to the laws of gambling, &c.; 
how much more powerful must be its operation in securing 
obedience to the laws of morality—to the laws of religion 
—to the laws of God! ‘By confounding all distinction’ be- 
tween the church and the world, the operations of that | 
powerful principle of shame are completely paralysed, and- 
effects the most baneful and pernicious produced. Such 
conduct, though dignified with the specious epithets of liber- 
ality and charity, I have no hesitation to pronounce alike 
repugnant to the laws of Christ, and the soundest principles 
af reason and philosophy. Coulda city be more completely 
exposed to the incursions of her enemies, than by the break- 
ing down of her walls and fortifications? Could a corn 
field be more effectually ruined, than by the breaking down 
of its fences? Could a vineyard be more effectually des- 
troyed, than by the removal of its hedges? “* Why hast 
thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they that pass 
by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth 
waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.” 
« IJ went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard 
of the man void of understanding ; and, lo, it was all grown 
over with thorns, nettles had covered the face thereof, and 
the stone wall thereof was broken down.”—Tell me, my. 
dear sir, could you more effectually ruin the church of God, 
than by breaking down the walls of her discipline ? How 
is it possible for the holy city to be trampled underfoot of 
the Gentiles? Is it not by admitting into the church of 
God the impious and immoral, the profligate and the pro- 
fane? Itis not by giving things that are holy to *dogs, and 


ar aa ea ERT CALPE SAT ECT Pea er oe Ea ae a 


- ® In the present enlightened age it is becoming unfashionable to ex- 
Aude from solemn ordinances any who have a desire for communion. 
No discipline—no tokens of admission—no debarring—these are only 
the relics of bigotry and superstition, Itis left to the consciences of 


all, whether they will participate or not. Now, in the word of God, 


286. 


casting pearls. before swine ? As it not by admitting to the . 


most solemn ordinances, Persons who should be treated as 
beathen men and publicans 2. When guch persons are ad- 
‘mitted, then the holy city is trampled under foot of Gentiles. 
It is profaned by persons, who, though they may wear the 
name of Christians, are in reality baptized infidels. Nay, 
sir, when the walls of discipline are broken down, the tem- 
ple of God ig destroyed—and “ if any man destroy the tem- 
ple of God, him will God destroy.” Presume not, there- 
fore, to supersede or alter the laws of your Redeemer. 
Dare not to substitute any civil code in the room of that 
system which he has established. Attempt not to legislate 
for the church of Christ. Content yourself with the faith- 
ful execution of those laws which he has enacted. Allow 
me to address you in the language of Paul to Timothy ; 
“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, 


and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, with- | 


out preferring one before another, doing nothing by parti- 
ality.” ' 

I am well aware, that to break down the walls of disci- 
pline, and to build the temple of God with wood, hay and 
stubble, as well as with gold, silver, and precious stones, 
is a dictate of worldly’ wisdom. I know that the most aban. 
doned characters are frequently the most opulent, and that 
the faithful exercise of discipline would be attended with a 
prodigious reduction of numbers, and diminution of emolu- 
ments. From these considerations I do not think it strange, 
that ministers of the gospel should reason thus: “If we 
exercise Christian discipline, our meeting houses will be 
immediately deserted : we shall soon find ourselves left in 


a small minority. Stripped of all our wealth and respecta- 


bility, we shall be hissed off the stage as enthusiastic bigots 
—the offscouring of all things and the refuse. On the con- 
trary, by decently laying aside the discipline of the church, 
we shall be looked up to as gentlemen of liberal, enlighten- 
ed minds—minds quite free from the prejudices and bigotry 
of the dark ages ; we shall obtain both wealth and ageran- 
the profane are denominated dogs and swine—animals not the most re- 
markable for diffidence or modesty. Serious as the subject is, it ig 
scarcely possible to avoid smiling, when we hear downy doctors gravely 
addressing dogs and swine—politely appealing to their consciences, 


whether they will taste the children’s bread: Surely this is liberality 
with & witness! 


Dp apse RS 


sy 


rl 


287 


dizement ; and, having large congregations, we shall have 
it in our power to do more good.”? In reply to all such 
reasonings the words of the divinely inspired apostle, when 
treating of this very subject, are appropriate: ‘* Letno man 
deceive himself; if any man among you seemeth to be 
wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be 
wise ; for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with 
God.”’ Rae : 

Decidedly hostile to every thing calculated «to super- 
sede the sacred oracles,” «to rival their splendour,” or 
‘* divert the attention of mankind from their perfection,” 


Iam, &c. 


LETTER V. 


Rev. Sir, « » | 
Having displayed your military prowess, in combating 
creeds and confessions in general, you select a few doc- 
trines of the Westminster confession, and against these you 
direct your death-dealing artillery. The first doctrine se- 
lected, is that of the covenant of works—a doctrine, which 
you assure us, has given rise to countless volumes. But 
why were all these volumes written? that the world, no 


doubt, might be dazzled by a most brilliant display of the 


polemical talents of our Rev. Presbyterian! Ye divines of 


* the greatest respectability, both of ancient and modern 


times: where are now your boasted learning and talents ? 
they are completely eclipsed. Where are now the count 
less volumes you have written on the covenant of works ? 
our Rev. Presbyterian, by less than two lines of his Battle 
of Dialogues, has swept them all into the gulf of annihila- 
tion! ‘IT now venture to affirm,” says this redoubtable 
champion, ‘* I now venture to affirm, that there is not asin- 
gle syllable, in the whole book of God, concerning such a 
covenant—there is not the most distant hint of it in Revela- 
tion.”’ 

_To be serious, Sir, is it not consequential enough in you. 
to imagine, that now, in the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, your simple ipse dixit will be regarded as a. suffp 


lent refutation of countless volumes? ‘The covenant of 


288 


works is a doctrine which has stood the test of examination _ 
during a series of centuries: the friction of opposition has 
only tended to brighten its evidence: its advocates are 
daily increasing, whilst myriads of those virulent pamphlets 
published against it, have, like Jonah’s gourd, “ sprung up 
in a night and perished ina night.”’? As countless volumes 
have already been written on the subject, I shall not, at pre- 
sent, increase the number. ‘Till you condescend to reason 
a little on the subject, I shall submit to your consideration 
only a few remarks. — . 

You assert, that there is not asingle syllable in the whole — 
book of God concerning the covenant of works. In oppo- 
sition to this assertion, I could adduce a variety of scrip- 
tures beside those quoted by our Westminster divines. 
But, as you object to the mode of establishing doctrines by 
a, collection of quotations, and assure us, that ‘‘ it would be 
much fairer and more convenient, to have the whole of 
revelation before us,’’ I shall for once endeavour to gratify 
your taste. Wishing to do every thing that is fazr, and 
to consult your convenience as far as possible, I shall allow 
you the privilege of having the whole of revelation before 
you.* ead it verse by verse, and then tell me if you do 
not find thousands of syllables concerning the covenant of 
works. ‘Tell me, in particular, if you do not find some- 
thing about the covenanters, or parties contracting—about 
the condition of the covenant—the penalty of the cove- 
nant—the reward attached to the fulfilment of the covenant 
—the seals of the covenant, &c. ; ina word, tell meif you 
do not find in the sacred volume every thing essential to 
the constitution of such a covenant. When Adam sinned, 
were not his posterity treated, as if they had been repre- 
sented in the same covenant? were they not treated pre- 
cisely ashe was? The penalty threatened was death: now 
this penalty was inflicted, not only on Adam, but on all his 
posterity. ‘«By one man sin entered into the world, and 
death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned.’? The last clause should be literally rendered 

= Good news, ye Rev. Divines of every denomination! No con- 
cordances—no marginal references—no laborious search, to find texts 
of scripture to prove your doctrines. Thanks to the Rev. Presbyte- 
rian, this old- fashioned method practised by the Westminster divines, 


is now exploded. As a much more honds and convenient inetaod, agg 
your bearers to the whole of revelation! }! 


289 


(ev ©) tn whom all have sinned. That the penalty threatened 
included, not only temporal but eternal death, is evident ; 
for the apostle assures us, ‘‘ That the wages of sin is death, 
but the gift of God eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
Lord.” Now, if that life; which is the gift of God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord, is eternal life, does not the contrast 
lead us to conclude, that the death which is the wages of 


sin, is eternal death? Pray, Sir, how could Adam’s poste- 


rity be subjected to the same penalty with their sinning an- 
cestor, had they not been represented in the same covenant ? 
But why need I reason any farther on the subject? Were 
I to fill volumes with such reasoning, in reply to them all, 
you would only call upon me to produce a single text of 
scripture, in which -it is asserted, that God entered into a 
covenant with Adam, as the representative of his posterity. 
That no such text is contained in the bible, I readily admit : 
but if this be any reason for exploding the doctrine, a va- 
riety of doctrines of great importance, held” by the Rev. 
Presbyterian himself, must, on the same principle, be ex- 
punged from his creed. You hold, for instance, the doc- 
trine of infant baptism: Pray, sir, produce a single text in 
which it is asserted that children ought to be baptized.— 
You believe in the divine institution of the Christian sab- 
bath: produce a single text, in which it is asserted, that 
the Redeemer has changed the sabbath from the seventh to 
‘the first day of the week. You admit females to the 
Lord’s supper ; produce a single text in which their right 
to admission is asserted. If by boldly asserting, that there 
is not.a single syllable, in the whole book of God, concern- 
_ ing the covenant of works—that, in revelation, there is 
not the most distant hint of that covenant—if, by such bold 
_ assertions as these, yowhave led your people to believe that 
they are quite free from the guilt of Adam’s first sin, I 
would request you; to try the same experiment with regard 
to their privileges—with regard to infant baptism, and the 
admission of females to the Lord’s supper. When parents 
apply to you for the administration of baptism, address 
them thus : ‘Infant baptism has given rise to countless yo- 
‘lumes, but, in order to prove, that they are all built on mere 
conjecture, I now venture to affirm, that there is not a sin- 
gle syllable in the whole book of God, concerning infant 
baptism—there is not the most distant hint of it in revela- 
_ tion. J will not therefore baptize your children.” Pray, 
Sir, would parents be satisfied with such a mode of reason- 
BO. 


< 


290 
ing? Woald they insist no farther on having their children 
baptized ?—Suppose, again, that the female part of your 
congregation apply for admission to the Lord’s supper, and 
youaddress them thus: ‘¢I venture to affirm, that there is 
not a single syllable in the whole-book of God, concerning 
the admission of females—there is not the most distant hint 
of such admission in revelation: I cannot, therefore, admit 
you.” Pray, sir, would such a mode of reasoning be per- 
fectly satisfactory ? Would females immediately relinquish 
their’privileges ? 

Indeed, my dear friend, it is a difficult’ thing to argue 

people out of what they suppose to be their privilege. But 
oh! how astonishing their credulity—how easy to practise 
on it, when the tendency of our reasoning is, to free them 
from the imputation of guilt, or the infliction of punish- 
ment! No wonder, therefore,\that your bare ipse dixit 
should satisfy \your hearers that there never was any such 
thing as a covenant of works, and that they are quite free, 
from the guilt of Adam’s first sin; whilst the strongest rea- 
soning you could possibly employ, would be far too feeble 
to induce them to renounce infant baptism, or the claims 
of females-to the holy communion. In a word, sir, prove 
from scripture the divine institution’ of the Christian sab- 
bath, and the divine right of infant baptism, and of the ad- 
mission of females to the Lord’s supper ; and I shall pledge 
myself to prove, with equal, if not greater force of scriptu- 
ral argument, the doctrine of the covenant of works, which 
you have exploded. year 

Before I conclude this letter, suffer, my dear ‘sir, the 
word of exhortation. Never attack the Westminster Di- 
vines with weapons which may be turned against yourself 
__-never attempt to overturn any doctrine which they have 
taught, by arguments which would deprive your own con- 
gregation of their most solemn privileges—of the Christian 
sabbath, baptism, and the Lord’s supper. ~ ia tight 

A warm friend of all those doctrines, which have their 
foundation in scripture, though they may not be asserted in 

‘so many words, Hee I . ae 
2 ; Tam, &c Y wee 


4 


7 


M 


291 


LETTER. VL 


Rev. Sir, | : 

After the covenant of works, the next article of the 
confession you attack, and over which you flatter yourself 
you can gain an easy victory, is the doctrine of predestina- 
tion. Inadvancing to the charge, you “ stiffen the sinews, 
summon up the blood, and disguise fair nature with hard- 
favoured rage.’’ ‘The manner (you declare) in which the 
Westminster divines have arranged their proofs, ‘‘ must ex- 
asperate the indignation of any man, who may find it incon- 
venient to believe the doctrine.’’ Under the influence of 
such exasperated indignation, you write a paragraph, cal- 
culated to excite feelings—(if not of indignation, yet) of 
pity, mingled with contempt. It commences thus: ‘I 
say, that the Westminster divines did not understand the 
New Testament on that subject, or that they have most 
foully quoted revelation to prove their own scheme of it. 
In the 3d chapter and 5th section of the confession, they 
assert, that the predestination of mankind to life took place 
-without any os of faith or good works: and then 
they quote separately, as they do in every other place, the 
30th verse of the 8th chapter of the Romans, which begins 
even with a moreover, but which is compelled, in this insu- 


_ lated state, to answer their-purpose,”’ &c. 


Yn this extraordinary paragraph you represent our West- 
minster divines as treating of the predestination of mankind 
to life. Now, my dear sir, allow me to assure you, that the . 
predestination of mankind to life is a doctrine of which the 
Westminster divines are totally ignorant. They believe no 
such doctrine: they teach no such doctrine, neither in the 
5th section of the 3d chapter, nor in any other section of 
any other chapter. It is only the predestination of a part 
of mankind—of the elect, that is the subject of that sec- 
tion: it reads thus—‘* Those of mankind that are predes- 
tinated unto life, Fc.’ Is this a wilful misrepresentation ? 
No: it is only a Rev. Presbyterian blunder. 

You proceed: “and then they quote separately, as they 


- do in every other place, the 30th verse of the 8th chapter 


of the Romans.” Is it possible! Do the Westminster 


\ 


292 ny 


divines quote, not only in this place, but in every other 
place, the 30th verse of the 8th chapter of the Romans ? 
Is this a wilful misrepresentation? No: it is only a Rev. 
Presbyterian blunder ! red NG 

~ Tell me, my dear sir, tell me candidly, have the West- 
minster divines, either here, or in any other place, quoted 
the 30th verse of the 8th chapter of the Romans, in proof 
of predestination without foreseen faith and good works ? 
Try HAVE Not. Let the section referred to be read, to- 
gether with the scripture proofs, by any person possessed 
of sufficient intelligence to trace those quotations ; it will 
then appear, that it is not the Westminster divines, who do 
not understand the New Testament—it.is not the Westmin- 
. ster divines, who have foully quoted revelation—it is the 
Rev. Presbyterian, who has most foully misrepresented the - 
Westminster divines. Rom. viii. 30, is quoted to prove pre- 
- destination in general, and this it does prove. ‘To prove 
that predestination was not founded on foreseen faith or 
good works, with their usual good sense and discrimination, 
the divines have quoted, among others, the following ap- 
propriate texts: 2 Tim. i. 9. Who hath saved us, and 
. called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, 
but according to his own purpose and grace, which was 
given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Eph. i. 
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foun- 
dation of the world, that we should be holy, and without 
blame before him in love, &c. These texts, which the 
_ Westminster divimes quote in proof of their doctrine, you 
throw completely into the shade—you decently pass them 
over, as if no such texts had been quoted—instead of these 
you foist in one, adduced by the divines for quite a differ- 
ent purpose—you then raise the hue and cry against them : 
you pour upon them a torrent of abuse: you brand them 
with infamy, for ignorance of the New ‘Testament—foul 
quotation of scripture, &c.!—Is this, my dear sir, your 
boasted candour ? is this the liberality of the nineteenth | 
century? Might I not here retort your own words,—‘* Sir, 
it is a happy blunder which enables me to show that some > 
people turn all they touch into error and misrepresentation, 
and then raise the cry of absurd assertion against their 
neighbours ?”” Your readers may now judge what credit 
is due to the following sweeping assertions. ‘‘ There is 
not a single chapter in the confession of faith, to support 
which some passages have not been wrested from their ori- 


293 


ginal meaning—even if its doctrines were true, there 19 
constant misapplication of scripture to support them.’’— 
Such assertions as these, published by a man confessedly 
under the influence of exasperated indignation, and con- 
victed of the grossest misrepresentation, will not be admit- 
ted as suflicient proof, that the Westminster divines were 
the most ignorant and dishonest men in the world. 

Say, my dear sir, does it not argue a weak—a desperate 
cuuse, when, in defence of it, you are obliged to brandish 
such disgraceful weapons? Why did you not allow the 
Westminster divines to speak for themselves? Why did 
you not lay before the public those texts they had quoted 
in proof of their doctrine? Why did you basely suppress 
those texts adduced by them to prove. that predestination 
was not founded on foreseen faith and good works? Were 
you afraid that those texts would flash conviction in the 
faces of your readers? To me, I coniess, it appears very 
difficult to conceive how any person, not previously biassed 
in favour of a system, could read those texts, and not be- 
lieve the doctrine true. We are said to be “chosen in 
Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should 
be holy, é&c.’? We were chosen, not because we were 
foreseen to be holy, but that we should be holy. From this 
very text, is it not demonstrably evident, that our holiness 
was not the foundation of our election, but our election the 
foundation of our holiness? Hence it is styled « an elec- 
tion of grace—and if it be of grace, it isno more of works, 
otherwise grace is no more grace.’’ Such is the uniform 
language of scripture. In favour of foreseen faith and 
- good works there is not a single text in the bible. Rom. 

viii. 29, 30, the only one on which you seem to rely, is per- 

fectly silent on the subject. It does not say that God pre- 

destinated to life those, who he foreknew would believe, 
and perform good works. This is what you would proba- 
bly say ; but the scriptures say no such thing, Whatever 
be the meaning of the phrase, ‘“‘ whom he did foreknow,” 
the Arminian* gloss cannot be the true one. That predes- 
tination is not founded on foreseen faith and good works, is 
demonstrably evident from this—that faith and good works, « 
upon Arminian principles, cannot possibly be foreseen.— 


* 


* The term Arminian is used merely as a term of ‘distinction, not of 


25* 


| §eproach. 


294 


Arminians maintain that it depends upon the self-determin- 
ing power of the will, whether any person believe or do 
good works. Upon their principles, every individual per- 
son may refuse to believe. Now, if any individual may re- 
fuse to believe, ald may refuse to believe. According to 
this scheme it was possible, that not one promise made to 
the Redeemer, with regard to the salvation of. sinners, 
should ever be fulfilled—it was possible that the Redeemer 
- should never see ‘one of his seed—one of the travail o 
his soul ;’”? it was possible that notwithstanding all our Me- 
diatorhas done andsuffered, not one single soul should ever 
belicve—that not one single soul should ever be saved—it 
was possible that all mankind might continue in unbelief 
and wickedness, and perish eternally ! 3 
Now, I would be glad to know, how it was possible for 
God to have a certain foreknowledge of those. who should 
believe and do good works, when it was possible that none 
would ever believe or do good works. Believe me, dear 
sir, had your prudence been equal to your ‘‘ exasperated 
indignation,’’ you would have studiously avoided any com 
troversy about the foreknowledge of God. Arminians 
have laboured for ages, but laboured in vain, to reconcile 
their system with this divine attribute. Tillotson, Groves, 
Abernethy, Dr. Sam. Clarke, and a whole host of philoso- 
phers and divines, have exerted their combined energies, 
and exhausted their gigantic powers, in fruitless efforts to 


accomplish this more than herculean labour. The present , 


Jearned and acute Doctor Adam Clarke has not been a 
whit more successful than his predecessors. «! We grant,’’ 
says the Doctor, “‘ that God foresees nothing as absolutely 
and inevitably certain, which he has made contingent : and 
because he has designed it to be contingent, therefore he 


cannot know it as absolutely and inevitably certain. I con-> 


clude, that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in 
consequence of this, to know all that he can know ; no 
- more than he is obliged, because he is omnipotent, to do 
all that he can do.”’? This is to cut, but not to loose, the 
Gordian knot—it is the dernier resort—the forlorn hope 
of Arminians—it is to deny one of the perfections of God, 
rather than give up a favourite system. ~ Though, in words, 
the learned Dr. acknowledges the omniscience of God ; yet, 
in fact, he denies that attribute. If the deity is not pos 
sessed of the actual knowledge of all things, but only of 
the power of knowing all things, he is not omniscient. To 


oie er alt Se} ae 
a © Sit ORT ee Le = 


"2 
¢ 
q 
ps - 
: 


295 
say that the supreme Being has a power of acquiring know- 
ledge, is the same as to say, that at one period of his ex 
_istence he may be comparatively ignorant, and at another 
period more knowing—that his knowledge may increase 
with his years, and that he may become wiser as he grows 
older! If the deity is capable of any accessions of power, 
he is not. omnipotent; in like manner, if he is capable of 
any accessions of knowledge, he is not omniscient. To say 
that God is omniscient, and yet deny that he must know all 
things, is a contradiction in terms. It. is as great a contra- 
diction, as to maintain that he is omnipotent, and yet deny 
that he must be possessed of all power. To say that the 
deity is not possessed of all power, is to deny his omnipo- 
tence; to say that he isnot possessed of all knowledge, is 
to deny his omniscience. The Doctor, therefore, denies the 
omniscience of God—he acknowledges the name, but de- 
nies the thing. 

But still farther, by denying that the Deity has the actual 
knowledge of all things, and maintaining that he has only 
the power of knowing all things, Dr. Clarke has gained jusé 
nothing at all. The difficulty remains the same. The 
question still recurs: How can the Deity, on Arminian 
principles, be possessed of such a power? How can he 
foreknow things which are contingent? things which may 
hever come to pass? As knowledge pre-supposes the cer 
tain existence of the thing known, so foreknowledge pre- 
supposes the certainty of the future existence of the thing 
foreknown. If the Deity knows that Dr. Clarke is at pre- 

* sent a believer, it is certain that Dr. Clarke is a believer, 

If it is possible that Dr. C. is no believer, whilst the Deity 
knows him to be a believer, then it is possible for the Deity 
to be mistaken. So, in like manner, if the Deity foreknew 
from all eternity that Dr. C. would be a believer, it was 
certain from all eternity, that Dr. C. would believe. If it 
was possible that Dr. C. might never believe, though the 
Deity foreknew that he would believe, then it was possible 
for the Deity to be mistaken! 

Every person must see that it is impossible for the Deity 
to know that a thing exists, if it does not really and cep- 
tainly exist. Equally impossible is it to foreknow that a 

_ thing will exist, if its future existence is not certain. That 
. these things are equally impossible, the Doctor. himself 
must acknowledge ; for, according to his own doctrine, 
Fore knowledge, after knowledge, and present knowledge, 


296 


are all the same. With the Deity there is nothing, strictly 
speaking, but present knowledge. ‘To say, therefore, that 
the Deity knows that a thing exists, and yet that it is pos- 
sible that. it does not exist, is to say that the Deity has a 
certain knowledge of its existence, and yet has no certain 
knowledge of it. In like manner, to say that the Deity 
foreknows those things which will exist, and yet that those 
things may never exist, is the same as to say that the Deity 
has a certain foreknowledge of their future existence, and 
yet that he has no certain foreknowledge of it! » 

Again, to say with Dr. Samuel Clarke, Mr. Bird, and 
others, that God foreknows necessary events as necessary, 
and contingent events as coniingent, is to say nothing at all 
to the purpose. The question still recurs: How is it possi- 
ble that contingent events should be foreknown. Mr. Bird 
illustrates his reasoning by the following example: We see 
the sun shining over our heads, and at the same time we 
see a man walking upon the earth. ‘The one we see as 
voluntary, the other as natural. He grants, however, that 
both must be done, or we could not see them at all; but 
he denies that they were both necessary before they were 
done—it. was only necessary that the sun should shine ; but 
not that the man should walk. Now, in opposition to this 
I contend that if it was necessary that the man should walk, 
in order that he might be seen walking, it was equally ne- 
cessary that he should walk, in order to be foreseen as 
walking. The walking of the man is an event which must 
certainly and infallibly come to pass, (as well as the shining 
of the sun,) -in order to be either seen or foreseen. As 
knowledge and foreknowledge are the same with the Deity, 
he can no more foreknow what will not certainly and infal- 
libly exist, than he can know what does not at present cer- 
tainly and infallibly exist. Mr. Bird asserts that God neces- 
sarily foreknows all that will come to pass. . Dr. A. Clarke 
asserts that God is not obliged to know all that he can know. 
This flat contradiction in the principles upon which these 
gentlemen proceed, does not prevent the Doctor from de- 
claring that Mr. Bird’s argument is a good one, and that 
his own is better. The Doctor must pardon me for think- 
ing that Mr. Bird’s argument is no argument at all, because 
it affords no solution of the difficulty ; and that his own is 
still worse, because it fails in solving the difficulty, and in- 


\ , beers 
\ ‘ Po os 


Fe Or at 


297 


volves, besides, not only a plain contradiction, but also the 
denial of a divine perfection,* 
_ Some of the most penetrating Arminian divines and phi- 
tosophers have given it as their opinion, that no man will 
ever be able to reconcile the contingency of future events 
with the foreknowledge of God. In this opinion I heartily 
acquiesce. I firmly believe these things will never be re 
conciled, because I believe they are irreconcileable. If any 
man is able to prove that it is possible for a thing to be and 
not to be at the same time—if he can prove that it is possi- 
ble to know a thing, and at the same time not to know it, 
then he may prove that it is possible for the Deity to fore 
know those events, which may possibly never come: to 
pass. 

Thus, Sir, it appears that predestination cannot be found- 
ed on foreseen faith and good works ; because, upon Ar- 
minian principles, it is absolutely impossible that either 
faith or good works should be foreseen. It appears that 
the doctrine of our Westminster divines, with regard to 
predestination, is not only sanctioned by the word of God; 
but the absurdity of the opposite opinion is capable of a 
demonstration, as strict as any contained in Euclid’s ele 
ments. Calvinistic principles stand upon a proud pre-emi- 
nence—they rest upon the immoveable basis of Divine Re- 
velation, and are consistent with the soundest principles of 
philosophy. Our moral philosophy class-room and divinity 
halls do not now resound with the doctrine of the self-deter- 
mining power of the will: the salt is now cast into the 
fountain. For more than half a century past, Calvinistic 
principles have been gaining ground, both among the learn 
ed and illiterate. At present they are rapidly progressing. 
If I can rely on the testimony of one of themselves, a young 
gentleman of great respectability, the students of the Synod 
of Ulster have, for some time past, been almost universally 
Calvinists. From the new wine they are turning with list- 


= < 


* If the denial of one of the attributes of Deity, and the belief of a 
contradiction, which is capable of the strictest demonstration, be neces 
sary to free Calvinists from the gross absurdities and blasphemies charg- 
ed upon them by Dr. C.; I am fully of opinion, they will. ubiversally 
agree with me in thinking, that the remedy is incomparably worse than 
the disease—they will regard the Arminian cause as desperate indeed, 
when in defence of it, a gentleman of the learning and talents of Dr. A, 
C,, is reduced to such extremities. RES 


* 


298 


less apathy, with the general exclamation, ‘‘The old is 
better.” ‘That the general Synod are retracing their steps 
that. they are returning to the Calvinistic. principles of 
their ancestors, is a fact which I believe. adinits of little 
doubt. The unanimity displayed in their judicious appoint. 
ment of a divinity professor, speaks volumes on this interes- 
ting subject. And, indeed, from my inmost soul I congrat- 
ulate them on their return to what I conceive to be the true 
and genuine principles of the gospel. ‘‘ I have no greater 
joy than to see”’ Christians of every denomination ‘‘ walking 
in truth.”’ : 


I am, 6c. 
LETTER VII. 
My Rev. and dear Presbyterian, 


I flattered myself that the vengeance you had taken on 
your enemies in your hard-fought Battle of Dialogues, would 
have fally gratified your ‘« exasperated indignation.” I flat- 
tered myself, that after the battle was over, the Westminster 
divines would find in the Rev. Presbyterian a generous foe. 
It never once entered my mind that so illustrious a warrior 
would return again to the field of battle, for no other pur- 
pose than to insult and abuse the wounded and the dying! 
In this it appears I have been mistaken. In your Battle of 
Dialogues, having knocked down, (or thought you had 
_ knocked down,) your enemies, you return, in your appendix, 
to kick them for falling. You assure us that the Westminster 
confession *‘ is not only inconsistent with the scriptures ; 
but that itis many times inconsistent with itself.’ To es- 
tablish this charge, you give a garbled account of the 3d 
Sec. of the 9th chapter ; after which you exclaim, “‘ How 
mizerable then is the state of this unregenerate man, since, 
if he pray to God it is asin, and since if he pray not it isa 
greater sin !’’ i belay ou ak Hino 

In the section referred to, the Divines teach that the 

works of unregenerate men, though they may be materially 
good, being done according to the divine command, and 
‘useful both to themselves and others, are nevertheless sin- 


ful, on a variety of accounts,—because they do not proceed 


~ 2o9 


from faith ; for without faith it is impossible to pleaseGod ; 
—because they do not proceed from love; for though we 
give all our goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it 
profiteth nothing, &c. ‘I'he Divines also teach us that the 
neglect of these works is still more sinful, and displeasing 
to God. ‘This they establish by irrefragable evidence. If 
we give our alms to be seen of men, we have no reward. 
Without charity, giving all our goods to feed the poor, 
profits nothing ; and yet, at the judgment of the great day, 
men shall be condemned for neglecting acts of charity. «J 
was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: [ was thirsty, 
and ye gave me no drink, &c. Inasmuch as ye did it not 
to the least of these, ye did itnot to me, &c.’’ Instead of 
laying before your readers this appropriate proof, you foully 
suppress it, and quote only the introductory verse, which 
you are pleased to hold up to ridicule. «Then shall he 
say unto those on his left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” 
This. you style a singular proof; but did you not know, my 
dear friend, that this is no proof at all? Was it ignorance, - 
or was it a fraudulent design, that induced you to represent 
it as aproof? Did you not know, that it was only the in 
troduction toa proof; and that the proof ifself was contain- 
ed in the subsequent verses, which I have already quoted, 
but which you have disgracefully suppressed? You pre- 
tend to lay befere the public the proofs which the divines 
have advanced in support of their paradox. Instead of this, 
you only bring forward two garbled texts, in proof of the 
one. part—the other part you leave entirely destitute of 
proof. Of the two texts brought forward, the one you re- 
present as quoted for a purpose quite the reverse of that 
for which it was really adduced—the other you represent as 
a proof when it isonly the introduction to a proof. Such 
management needs no comment; the only observation I 
would make, is, that you acted wisely in concealing your 
name. Oe, iN ar 

» To support their paradox the Divines produce a multitude 
of appropriate texts, which the reader may consult at hig 
leisure. ‘hat an action may be sinful, and ‘the neglect of 
it more sinful, is a paradox censistent both with scripture 
and reason.» +‘ The ploughing of the wicked is sin,” and 
_ yet I trust you will readily acknowledge, that not to plough - 
-would bea greater sin: »The conduct of Henry VIII. in 
promoting the reformation, considering the abominable mo- 


t 


@ 


300 


tives by which he was actuated, was undoubtedly sinful ; 
and yet, what Protestant will deny, that his conduct would 
have been also sinful, had he neglected to promote the Re- 
formation? Jehu’s conduct, in cutting off the house of 
Ahab, because it proceeded from improper motives, was 
sinful ; and yet, had he disobeyed the divine command, his 
conduct would have been more sinful. Suppose a man sees 
his neighbour’s house on fire, and hates the family so much 
that he would gladly see them all consumed ; there being, 


however, in the house, a person who owes hima sum of — 


money, he assists in extinguishing the flames, and rescuing 
the family from the devouring element. Considering the 
state of his mind, and the baseness of his motive, is not his 
conduct sinful? and yet, to suffer the whole family to perish 
would be more sinful. May I not here exclaim in your own 
style, «‘ How miserable is the situation of this poor man! 
if he quench the flames, it is a sin, and if he do not quench 
them, itis a greater sin.”’ ‘The sacrifice of the wicked, 
we are assured, is an abomination to the Lord;’? and yet, 
had he neglected to sacrifice, he would have been guilty of 
a greater sin. In like manner, the prayer of the wicked is 
an abomination to the Lord ; and yet, not to pray would be 
a greater sin. In your introductory sentence you say, 
‘« Perhaps he (the author) may venture to suppose, that in- 
dependent of the inconsistency which exists between it (the 
confession) and the word of God, it is many times incon- 
sistent with itself.” In reply to this, you will now permit 
me to say, that perhaps I may venture to suppose, that you 
are mistaken.” ah 
As paradoxes appear to be the order of the day, let us 
advert to those of the Rev. Presbyterian. Whatever may 
be your inferiority to the Westminster divines in other re- 
spects, candour and justice oblige me to acknowledge, 
that, in writing paradoxes, you are not “behind the very 
chiefest of them.’’ Those of the Westminster divines are 
easily solved; but the solution of yours, I am perfectly 
convinced, will baffle the ingenuity of all the philosophers 
and divines in the world. Compared with them, Samp- 
son’s riddle is not worthy to be named. Page 43, you 
assure us, ‘‘ that if the general assembly and Seceders 
avere to act up to the principles of their predecessors, Co- 
venanters would be punished as heretics.” Now, my dear, 
sir, as the predecessors of these two bodies were Cove- 
naniers, were they to act up to the principles of their 


. 


301 


‘predecessors, they would be also Covenanters. How 
then could Covenanters be punished as heretics : Here is a 
paradox ! 

Page 26, you inform us, that though Layman be ortho- 
dox in Ireland, he would be a heretic in England. Now, 
my dear sir, every schoolboy, who has read a little geo- 
graphy, knows, that the established religion of England 
and Ireland are the same. How then could Layman be 
orthodox in Ireland and a heretic in England ? Another 
paradox ! . SHEE IE ee 

Same place, you assure us, that « Layman, if a Seceder, 
would be banished from the united kingdom by the solemn 
league.”” Now, my dear sir, if Seceders swear and sub- 
scribe the solemn ‘league, how is it possible, that by that 
same league they should be banished from the united king- 
dom? Another paradox! ’ Most extraordinary and para- 
doxical covenants to be sure! Those who believe them 
would be punished by them, and those who do not believe 
them would be punished’ by them—those who subscribe 
and swear them would be punished by them, and those who 
do not subscribe and gwear them would be punished by 
them—- Seceders would be punished by them, Covenanters 
would be punished by them, and all others would be 
punished by them! Diabolical covenants indeed ! No 
wonder they were burned by the hands of ‘the commo 
hangman ! | 
Page 36, you assure us, that the covenants and confes- 
‘sion are inseparable. How then were they separated: by 
the synod of Ulster? How were they separated by the 
general assembly of Scotland? Another paradox! ‘ 

Without mentioning any more of your paradoxes, per- 
haps I might now venture to suppose, that independently 
of the inconsistence of your sentiments with the word of 
God, they are many times inconsistent with themselves. — 
I am, sir, notwithstanding, your sincere friend and para- 
doxical correspondent, &c. 


96 


302 


p> LETTER VIL: 


My Rev. and dear Presbyterian, i ALP Rh ee wae 
It would not be doing justice to your talents and ingenu- 
ity, to pass unnoticed your lucubrations on Covenants, Co- 
yenanters, Seceders, &c. With regard to covenants, you 
express yourself thus: ‘* If our forefathers, instead of com+ 
posing leagues and covenants, and swearing to them, had 
bound themselves to spread the scriptures ‘by the gentle 
arts of persuasion, under the protection of the civil magis- 
trate, you must grant, that they would more readily and 
rapidly have melted down oppression from amongst themt- 
selves, and persecution from amongst their enemies.” Pray, 
sir, how could our forefathers have bound themselves to 
spread the scriptures, but by a league anda covenant? ‘The 
paragraph, when analyzed, will read thus: If our fore- 
fathers, instead of binding themselves by leagues and cove- 
nants, had bound themselves by a league and a covenant, 
éc. After reading an observation so sagacious and sensi- 
ble, can any person doubt your qualifications for discussing 
the subject of leagues and covenants? I confess, however, 
that notwithstanding the flood of light you pour all around 
you, there is one difficulty still rests upon my mind—it is 
to ascertain, whether the Rev. Presbyterian be not himself 
a kind of mongrel Covenanter. ‘T'o covenants, binding to 
spread the scriptures, you seem to have no dislike—on the 
contrary, you appear to approve of them highly. » Now, 
sir, were you to enter into a covenant to spread the serip- 
tures, do you: not know that you would be a covenanter? 
You appear to hesitate. When Covenanter. .cbhserves, 
* you are such an advocate for the Gospel, alone, that you 
would refuse, I plainly see, to sign them, (the covenants, ) 
or swear to them in any case ;”’ ‘“ that I cannot tell,” says 
the Rev. Presbyterian. You appear to doubt, whether, 
in any case, you would become a Covenanter. - In clearing 
this doubt perhaps I could assist you a little. e 
Page 43, you assure us, that the ministers of the church 
of Scotland swear and subscribe every article of the league 
and covenant. In this sentence, sir, there is a slight inae 


303 

curacy—-I mean that what you have asserted is not matter 
of fact. ‘It happens, that the ministers of the church of 
Scotland ‘neither swear nor subscribe one single article of 
the league and covenant. No matter: You thought they 
did’; for Iam sure you would not wilfully publish a falge~ 
hood. You thought, that the ministers of the church of 
Scotland swear and subscribe the league and covenants 
in other words, you thought they were Covenanters. Now, 
my dear sir, when you were exerting yourself to obtain a 
union with these ministers, did you not think that you 
were about to become a Covenanter ? Why then do you 
not join the Irish Covenanters? It cannot be lucrative 
motives that prevent you, for you assure us, “ that the foun- 
dation of your loyalty is not founded on the countenance 
of government ;”’ much less can we suppose that ‘* the 
foundation of your religion is founded on that countenance.”’ 
Perhaps you will allege, that the true reason why you give 
a preference to the: imaginary covenanters of the general 
assembly, is, that though they swear and subscribe the 
same standards; yet, with them, they are in a great mea. 
sure dead letters. That this is actually the case, you aw 
sure us, page 26. Now, sir, if this be go, why do you cen- 
sure Covenanters and Seceders, because, with regard to a 
section or two of the Confession of Faith, there is a slight 
diversity of opinion ; and because the subscribers explain 
_ the sense in which they understand these sections? To 
me, I confess, such a mode of proceeding appears quite 
candid and fair. You think otherwise, You express your- 
self thus : “ For Ido assure you, that society is now fully 
persuaded, from experience, that neither Covenanters nor 
Seceders are too honest or too holy, and that subscription 
to the whole doctrines contained in the confession of faith, 
larger and shorter catechisms, often turns out a rope of 
sand, which they can snap at pleasure.” All very good : 
but pray, sir, what do you think of the honesty and _holi- 
ness of the general assembly of Scotland ? If your account 
of them he true, they swear and subscribe the confession 
and covenants, and afterwards allow them to remain in a 
great measure dead letters. Could a more infamous ban- 
- ditti be found on the face of this earth, than you have re- 
Presented the general assembly 2—a banditti of perjured 
villains, who are no way influenced by oaths or subscrip- 
tions—who trample underfoot the most solemn obligations! 
Now, sir, if Covenanters and Seceders have a right to be 


304. 


stigmatized as dishonest and unholy, because they subscribe 
a few sections of the confession and covenants in a quali- 
fied sense ; must not the general assembly, upon. your own 
principles, be ten thousand times more dishonest and more 
unholy ? and yet, strange to tell, dishonest and unholy 
as they are, you courted their fellowship !—still stranger to 
tell! dishonest and unholy as they are, they considered theme 
selves too honest, and too holy, to admit you into their 
communion! Their language to you was, ‘‘ Stand _ by thy- 
self; come not near us; for we are-holier than thou !”’ 
_ But again: Do you really imagine, that the two presby- 
teries of the Synod of Ulster, that, according to your own 
account, use the confession of faith ‘+ in. such a qualified 
manner as to render it a mere name—a piece of appear- 
ance !!!?’—-do you really imagine that these two presbyte- 
ries have much the advantage of Covenanters or Seceders. 
in point of honesty or holiness ? Ye Seceders and Cove- 
nanters! ye Christians of every denomination! come see 
the zeal of the Rev. Presbyterian for honesty and holiness! 
in him contemplate a perfect paragon of candour and im- 
partiality ! shia. ) 
Page 26, you say, ‘* Let any humble Christian compare 
the acts and testimonies of Seceders and Covenanters, and 
then let him judge, as to the harmony and uniformity which 
are brought about by adhering to the same human confes- 
sion.’ Here, 1 am convinced, both Seceders and Coven- 
anters should plead guilty. They have not, on all occa- 
sions, treated each other with that meekness and gentle- 
ness, which become disciples of the meek and lowly Re- 
deemer. The only legitimate conclusion, however, which 
follows from this, is, that creeds and confessions go only a 
certain length in producing peace and concord—they do 
not eradicate all our corruptions—they do not render men 
absolutely perfect. The objection. however, would prove 
too much ; it would prove that the scriptures themselves are 
only an imposture ; for these sacred oracles do not produce 
universal peace and harmony. Because perfect, harmony 
cannot be attained by all the means we can possibly em- 
ploy, is this any reason that no means at all should be used 
for obtaining so desirable an end? Surely not. ap eie 
‘That the controversial writings of Seceders and Coven- 
anters, published fifty or a hundred years ago, should par- 
ticipate a little of the spirit of those times, is not very 
atrange. It is hoped, however, that the candid inquirer 


305 t 
will judge of their spirit and temper by their modern pro- 
ductions. Let any unprejudiced person consult “« A short 
account of the old Dissenters,” and « An explanation and 
defence of their terms of communion,” both published by 
the Reformed Presbytery in Scotland. Let him also con- ~ 
sult the Act and Testimony published by the Covenanting 
church in America, Reid’s pamphlet against Fletcher, and 
Longmoor’s pamphlet against the Covenanters ; and then 
let him say, if they do not breathe the manly, but, at the 
same time, mild and candid spirit of the Gospel.* : 
For a considerable time past, it has been in contempla- 
tion to revise some of our subordidate standards, particu- 
larly our Act and Testimony. In the mean while, I trust 
it will be distinctly understood, that it is not for words or 
phrases, but for principles, that Covenanters contend. If, 
in their Act and Testimony, or other public documents, the 
language employed is in any instance harsh, or caleulated 
to give unnecessary pain to any denomination of Christians, - 
Covenanters do not approve of such language. Their ob- 
ject, however they may fail in its accomplishment, is, under 
a deep sense of unworthiness, fallibility, and imperfection, 
to testify against the evils of the age in which they live, in 
language calculated, not to irritate and mortify, but to con- 
ciliate and reform—in language calculated, not to widen, 
but to heal those breaches which so mournfully prevail. 
‘The truth is, that if there be any want of harmony be- 

-tween Seceders and Covenanters, it is not to be attributed 
to their subscribing the same standards. It is not the iden- 
_ tity, but the difference of their standards that has occasioned 
_ their disputes. Among Covenanters themselves, who all 
subscribe the same standards, has there not been from the 
earliest period of their history, an astonishing uniformity of 
sentiment ? With them, doctrines the most heterogeneous 
and opposite are not exhibited from the same pulpit. One 


*® The only exception with which Iam acquainted, isa sermon en- 
titled the Times, published by the Rev. Mr. Edgar, present Seceding 
Professor of Divinity. .In this sermon the author has poured upon Coy- 
enanters a torrent of illiberal abuse. In less than half a page he has 
Javished upon them nearly a score of abusive epithets. The poison, 
however, is accompanied by the antidote. Suéh railing accusations 
against sister sects is strongly and repeatedly reprobated in the same 
Sermon. The author assures us, that sucha mode of supporting truth 

is wearing away. I believe it is. _T hope that his own virulent invee- 
tive may be safely regarded as the ast expiring groans of party spirit. 

. . 96 


306 


does not teach that. the Redeemer is the supreme God ; 
another, that he is the highest of all creatures ; and another, 
‘that he is nothing more than a mere man. One does not 
teach, that the Medeemer’s blood is a vicarious sacrifice ; 
and another, that it is only a beneficial attestation of the 
truth of his doctrine. One does not teach, that we are jus- 
tified by. our own righteousness, and another, that we are 
justified by the righteousness of the Redeemer. One does 
not ascribe our sanctification to the efficiency of the Holy 
Ghost, and another, to the self-determining power of the 
will. In a word, with them, one is not employed in des- 
troying what the other builds. Neither, Sir, do Seceders 
differ among themselves, nor dispute with Covenanters 
about these great and important doctrines of our holy reli- 
gion. With you a greater diversity of opinion. prevails, 
than would obtain among Seceders, Independents, and 
Covenanters, were they all united into one community. 
“Nor can you boast very much of your harmony; at least 
you have exhibited a very poor specimen. You represent 
two of your Presbyteries as guilty of the deepest dissimula- 
tion—as acting a solemn farce in setting apart candidates 
to the office of the holy ministry—as using the confession 
of faith in such a qualified manner as to render it a mere 
name, apiece ofappearance! You represent a Rev. brother, 
whom, (if I mistake not the object,) learning, talents, zeal, 
and popularity, have raised to the highest eminence, and 
rendered an object of envy—this worthy character you rep- 
resent as so.completely absorbed in self, that duty never 
predominates over interest—as ‘+ always in a strait between 
two, the opinions of his hearers and the laws of his master, 
whilst the former frequently turn the beam!’? Were you 
to break cover, and come forth from your dark retreat, the 
general Synod, I have no doubt, would do its duty, by in- 
flicting on you that chastisement, which such insolenee, not 


to say malignity, deserves. ‘Tell me, my friend, could you 


exhibit to the world no better specimen of the harmony 
which pervades the general Synod, or of that liberality and 


charity/which characterise the enlightened enemies ofcreeds 


and confessions? Your quondam Rey. father, Dr. M* 
Dowal, of Dublin, has expressed himself thus : «« A society 
made up of jarring principles is more likely to defeat the 
designs of the gospel than to promote them. It bears somp 
resemblance to Sampson’s assemblage of foxes, which being 
enclosed in the same field, with their heads looking different 


~~ 


307 


ways, but fastened together by the tails, with firebrands be- 
twixt them, snarled, bit, and struggled, drawing different 
ways, until they laid waste-the pleasant field, and utterly 
destroyed the plentiful crop.”’. Whether the Doctor would 
have regarded you as oné’of those foxes, bound to the Synod 
only by the tail, as he and |} are not in the habit of corres- 
ponding, I am not at present prepared to determine. Nor 
can I say much about the fundamental bond of union. That 
it is not the confession of faith is evident, for this you have 
decently laid aside—that it is not the bible is equally plain ; 


- for it would not teach you to snarl, bite, and devour. What 


the fastening ligament really is, as the Doctor is silent on 
the subject,“I shall leave to you and the public to decide. 
I confess, my dear sir, that, from your Battle of Dialogues, 


it is difficult to ascertain your real principles. You style 


yourself a Rev. Presbyterian—a title which you assure us 
exclusively belongs to the members of the general Synod. 
Your sentiments, as we have already seen, would sometimes 
lead us to conclude that you are a Covenanter ; whilst other 
parts of your pamphlet would authorize us to infer, that you 
were neither more nor less than a good old Roman Catholic. 
For instance, you triumph over Layman for asserting that 
fallible men may produce [teach] infallible doctrine. This 
you represent as the greatest contradiction, and the rankest 
popery. Now, Sir, if this be so, | hope to prove, to your 
own satisfaction, that you are arank papist.. That we may 
not forget our logic, I shall prove it syllogistically, thus: 
Whoever teaches truth teaches infallible doctrine : 
- But the Rev. Presbyterian teaches truth ; 
_ Ergo, the Rev. Presbyterian teaches infallible doctrine. 
You will not deny, 1 hope, that truth is infallible; and of 
course, that every true doctrine is an infallible doctrine— 
nor will you deny that you sometimes teach truth, or in 
other words, that you sometimes teach infallible doctrine, 
Now, Mr. Aristotle; just one syllogism more, and Ihave 
done: Veey : 
» Whoever teaches infallible doctrine is a rank Papist ; 
But the Rev. Presbyterian teaches infallible doctrine ; 
Therefore, the Rev. Presbyterian is a rank Papist. 
Do not blush, my good friend: you have not the least 


reason to be ashamed; you have performed a. glorious 
_ achievement. You are surrounded on all hands with ex 
cellent company. All the ministers of the general Synod— 


all Seceding ministers,—Covenanting ministers—Indepen- 


308 


dent ministers—Methodist Ministers—in a word, all the 
Protestant ministers in Christendom are rank Papists! / 
You have reclaimed them all—reduced them all to obedi- 
ence to the Holy See! You have effected more by a few 
lines of your Battle of Dialogues, than all the anathemas of 
Rome—than all the Pope’s bulls—than all the tortures and 
executions of the holy Inquisition! A jubilee, not only at 
Rome, but a universal jubilee, will, no doubt, be immedi- — 
ately proclaimed : and, hark ye, my friend! when the chair 
of St. Peter becomes vacant, who is better entitléd to fill 
it than your reverence ?—after death, whose name will be 
more deserving of a place in the.calendar of Saints ?—whose 
shrine will be more generally visited than yours ? that of 
St. Thomas-a-Becket, will be almost entirely deserted—it 
will sink into comparative contempt. Kata 

Hail, universal peace and harmony! Animosities and 
divisions are now no more. All ‘distinctions of sects and 
parties are entirely abolished. Heresy is completely anni-— 
hilated. The term, heretic, will no longer be used—not 
even ‘« as a bugbear to ‘frighten children.” The only 
herétic in the world is the Rev. Divine, your neighbour; 
- who, you assure us, ‘‘is a teacher of words ; but in no in- 
stance of truth.’’ I confess, indeed, that I was of opinion 

there was no such teacher in the world—I thought that- 
 e@rrors and lies, without any mixture of truth, were a dose 
by far too nauseous for human beings of any description; but 
in this, it appears, I have been mistaken ; for your neigh- 
bouring clergyman, you assure us, is “in no instance, a 
teacher of truth. Now, if this be so, (and who can doubt 
it, after you have asserted it?) if this be so, it is quite 
plain, that the preacher in question is no Papist. If he 
teaches no truth, he teaches no infallible doctrine—if he 
teaches no infallible doctrine, he is no Papist—if he is no 
Papist, he is a heretic,—and if he is a heretic, you know how 
to treat him. After you have ascended the chair, of St. 
Peter, by your Inquisitor General proclaim an auto da fe ; 

and by one decisive blow banish heresy for.ever from the 
world, 

Leaving you in the bosom of your old phother church, 
and congratulating you on the prospect. of your advance- 
ment to the Papal chair, I am, sir, warmly attached to in 
fallible doctrine, and at the same time, 

. | Your sincere Friend, &e. 


PIs 


309 


LETTER IX. 


Rev. Sir, 

Against Covenanters, both ancient and modern, you pre- 
fer the heavy charges of intolerance and persecution. ‘It 
is notorious,’ you assure us, ‘* that numbers were banish- 
ed and confined for non-comformity, and that many were 
put to death for denying some of the doctrines of the con- 
fession. Among those who were tried and hanged was a 
student of Edinburgh College, for speaking against the tri- 
nity and incarnation of Christ. He was denied the com- 
mon place of interment, and was appointed to be buried in 
the same ground with notorious criminals and malefactors, 
Such was the manner in which the covenanted uniformity 
was prosecuted.’’ I suppose, sir, you will not deny, that 
every man should be held innocent, till once he is proved 
guilty. ‘This privilege is all I ask for our reforming ances- 
tors. You are their public accuser: bring forward your 
evidence. You say numbers were banished—pray what 
number? You affirm that many were put to death—pray, 
how many? Such vague and indefinite language is indeed 
a very fit vehicle for slander and calumny, but is ill adapted 
for the ascertaining of truth. Please be a little more parti- 
cular: quote your authorities: specify time, place, and 
other circumstances. The characters of our reforming an- 
cestors, to whose magnanimous exertions we are indebted 
both for civil and religious liberty, are too precious and 
respectable, to be allowed to fall victims to your licentious, 
unauthenticated abuse. Remember, sir, you are publicly 
called on to substantiate your charges. If you fail in your 
evidence, or refuse to bring it forward, you must be content 
to be viewed as a public calumniator. 

I have no idea, that either the civil constitution or ad- 
ministration of our reformers was perfect. Iam no way 
bound, nor do I feel disposed, to vindicate all their mea- 
sures, acts of parliament, &c. In some instances they 

might be too severe: in general, however, lam convinced 
they ruled, considering the circumstances of the times, with 
a very mild sceptre. Their measures were sometimes 
quite too lenient. So far were they from attempting, ac- 


310 

cording to your groundless accusation, to put down all who 
differed from them in opinion; that a considerable minority, 
who refused to acquiesce in the established order of things, 
were nevertheless allowed to live unmolested in the enjoy- 
ment of personal liberties and property under the protection 
of the law. These men were generally attached to prelacy 
~ and arbitrary government : many of them had fought against 
the liberties of their country under the reign of Charles I. : 
and many of them were men of infamous moral character, 
hence called malignants ; yet notwithstanding, so foolishly 
indulgent were our reforming forefathers, that they admitted 
these men into places of power and trust, to the complete 
subversion of the constitution, and introduction of prelacy 
and arbitrary power, with all the horrors of tyranny and per- 
secution in their train! Be candid, my dear sir, and dis- 
tinguish between that just chastisement inflicted on those 
who were conspiring against the civil and religious liberties 
of the nation, and any severity which may be supposed to 
have been exercised on men merely on account of their re» 
ligion—make this candid distinction, and I am convinced 
that the mountain of persecution which you have conjured 
up before the imagination of your readers, will instantly 
dwindle into a mole hill. 

As, in the reformation period, the circumstances of the 
times might justify a degree of severity, which In the pre- 
sent age would be highly criminal; so we might expect, 
that modern Covenanters would be much more mild and hu- 
mane than their forefathers. It appears, however that the 
case is quite otherwise. You assure the world, that if Co- 
venanters could get the king to sign and swear the cove- 
fants, we should soon feel the wholesome effects of their 
contents—what these wholesome effects would be we may 
learn from page 44, where you assure us, that “all must be- 
lieve, or seem to believe, the doctrines contained in the 
covenants and confession, or be burned, buried, or banish- 
ed, as Covenanters and the magistrate might think proper.”’ 
—Pray, sir, how many were burned, buried, or banished 
for those crimes, when the king did sign and swear the 
covenants? Was a single individual burned? not one. 
Was a single individual buried? yes, no doubt, after death. 
An odd kind of punishment indeed, to bury people after 
they die! I suppose the majority of the nation were so 
punished.—But perhaps you mean, (for your words would 
generally require an interpreter,) perhaps you mean that 


341 


Dissenters would be buried. alive, Pray, sir, how many 
were buried alive during the Reformation period? It ig 
true indeed, this is not the question—the question is not 
what Covenanters did nearly two centuries ago; but what 
they would do in the present age.—The ancient Covenan- 
ters, it seems, had a small portion of humanity; but the 
modern ones have none. The old ones were content with 
hanging and beheading ; but nothing less than burning and 
burying alive would gratify the ferocity of their degenerate 
sons! What a perverse race of mortals are these same 
Covenanters! Whilst all other classes and denominations 
are in_a progressive state of civilization, these savages are 
constantly becoming more sanguinary and Serocious! In 
the course of less than two centuries more, we may expect 
them metamorphosed into complete cannibals '—Compose 
yourself, my dear friend; dismiss your fears ; I hope you 
need not be very uneasy: I trust there is no great danger. 
of your being either burned or buried alive - your fears on 
this quarter are nearly as groundless, as those you enter- 
tain lest the Covenanters should pluck the planets from their 
orbits. ‘It is well,” says the Rey. Presbyterian, « that 
you (Covenanters) are not great astronomers, or I dread 
you would pluck the planets from their orbits, that you 
might the better arrange their courses.” Now, sir, your 
fears of being burned or buried alive are, | presume, ag 
groundless as your dread of the planets being plucked from 
their orbits—nay they are more groundless. | From the 
fewness of their numbers, it is not very likely, that Cove 
nanters will attempt to overturn the state: and as they do 
not stand on a very respectable footing with his majesty’s 
government, there is little danger of the king joining them 
in their diabolical scheme of burning the people, or burying 
them alive. But with regard to the plucking of the planets 
from their orbits the case is very different. To qualify for 
this, according to your own doctrine, all that is necessary 
is, that Covenanters be great astronomers. Now, who can 
tell but, some time or other, this may actually be the casa, 
I can assure you, sir, it is whispered, nay, it is confidentl 
affirmed by some, and they appeal to the records of Glae 
gow college for the truth of their statement—that for mote 
than twenty years past, the Covenanting students, in pro- 
ortion to their number, have taken more prizes, particus 
laity in the higher philosophical classes of that university, 
than the students of any other denomination in the united 


312 


empire. It is even reported, that the gentleman who, in 
philosophical studies, has lately eclipsed all his fellow stu- 
dents, and who, at this very moment, is in possession of a 
large burse, is an Irish Covenanter.. Now, sir, I must con- 
fess, that according to your doctrine, there is something in 
these appearances truly alarming! Should Covenanting 
students go on in this way, eclipsing their fellow. students, 
itis hard to say but some of them may at last become great 
astronomers’; and in case of this event, | would not-guaran- 
tee the safety of the solar system. What mischief might 
enter the minds of such aspiring headstrong fellows, it is 
difficult to say. Should they actually pluck any of the pla- 
nets from their orbits, for aught I know, the consequences 
might be universally pernicious. Not only would these 
planets, according to your doctrine, appear deformed ; but, 
as you are a great astronomer, you know much better than 
I do, that these planets are peopled as well as our own ; 
and of course, should those desperadoes drag them to a 
nearer conjunction with the sun, their miserable inhabitants 
though not buried alive, might be burned alive—on the other — 
hand, should those miscreants sweep the planets to a greater 
distance, the conqueror of the French, general Frost, might, 
without the least mercy, overwhelm in one universal catas- 

trophe their entire population! : 
Now, my dear sir, being a very humane gentleman—your 
benevolence being not at all confined to this dirty litle 
world, but embracing in its extensive grasp the inhabitants 
of distant stars and planets, 1 have no doubt you will me- 
morialize the faculty, not to permit any Covenanter to enter 
the higher philosophical classes in Glasgow college, till 
he has previously given sufficient security, that he will not 
on any account whatever, either pluck, or assist in pluck- 
ing from their orbits, any of the planets of the solar system. 
Allowing you time to draw up your memorial, and in the 
meanwhile, warmly participating in your benevolentconcern 
for the safety of the planets, d pation. 4 
fiat | Lam, &c. | 


ey, 


313 


LETTER X, 
Rev. Sir, 


~ To convince the world that the principles of Covenan- 
ters are intolerant, you quote the following paragraph fron 


their Act and Testimony :, “« And further they declare, that 


it is most wicked, and what manifestly strikes against the 
sovereign authority of God, for any power on earth to pre- 
tend to tolerate, and by sanction of civil law to give license 
to men to publish, and propagate with impunity, whatever 
errors, heresies, and damnable doctrines, Satan and their 
own corrupt and blinded understandings may prompt them 


_ to believe and embrace : authoritative toleration being des- 


e 


tructive of all true religion, and of that liberty wherewith 
Christ hath made his people free, and of the great end 
thereof, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of 


' Our enemies we may serve the Lord, &c. 


Now, sir, you will certainly grant, that the Presbytery 
who published the above document are the best qualified 
to explain it. 

In an abstract of their principles, designed as- an intro- 
duction to their Act and Testimony, they express them- 
selves thus: ‘ While Dissenters testify against toleration, 


_ * they are’not to be.understood as meaning a merely Passive 
_ toleration, implying nothing more than simply permitting 


men to exist unmolested, to hold their different opinions, 
without using external violence to make them change these, 
or to exterminate them from the face of the earth if they 
do not. Forbearance of this kind, after every scriptural 
and rational means-has been used without effect, cannot be 
condemned’; but what they have in view, is, that authori- 
tative toleration, in which the rulers of a kingdom, assum- 
ing the character of judges in these matters, by ‘their pro- 
clamations or other public deeds, declare what different 
Opinions or systems they will allow to be taught and propa~ | 
gated ; and to what modes of worship they will give coun 
tenance and protection, while they exclude others from that 
supposed privilege.”— ieee 

Such are the principles Covenanters have published to 
the world. Be candid, sir, and tell your readers, that it is 


vip 
314 


omy against authoritative toleration that Covenanters testify. 
Passive toleration, they have declared in their public deeds, 
they by no means condemn. ‘They approve of no weapons 
for converting men, but the bible, the preaching of the gos- 
pel, arguments, prayers, and the like. ‘That toleration 
against which they testify, even in the paragraph you have 
quoted, is expressly styled authoritative toleration. Viewed 
in this light, the texts adduced in proof of the doctrine are 
perfectly appropriate. They read thus: «‘ There is one 
lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy : who art thou 
that judgest another ?—Who art thou that judgest another 
man’s servant ? to his own master he standeth or falleth— 
But Peter and John answered and said, whether it be right 
in the sight of God to hearken unto God more than unto” 
you, judge ye—And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, 
and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may 
speak thy word—Ye are bought with a price; be ye not 
the servants of men—And call no man your father, upon 
the earth, for one is your father who is in Heaven, &c. © 

By way of inuendo, you tell us that these texts are wor- 
thy of observation—and then you go on to observe: ‘* If 
these texts mean any thing, it is, that no magistrate, or 
man, or body of men, has a right to prevent their fellow 
creatures from believing whatever doctrines their under 
standings may prompt them to believe and embrace.’’ 

Pray, sir, did the Reformed Presbytery teach in the pas 


sage you have quoted ; or have they taught in any other 


part of their writings, that any magistrate has a right to 


prevent men from believing according to the dictates of. 


their understandings? No, Sir: neither the Reformed 
Presbytery, nor any other Presbytery, have taught as you 
ridiculously insinuate. They have taught no such absur 
dities. No Spanish inquisitor can prevent a man from be- 
lieving according to the dictates of his understanding. He 
might as well attempt to prevent him from seeing colours, or. 
hearing sounds, according to the dictates of his senses. Not to 
believe the doctrines which our understandings promptusto 
believe, is a contradiction : it is to believe and not to believe, 
those doctrines at the same time.—Now, sir, were the texts, 
quoted above written for the purpose of proving—that no 
man has a right to do that which is impossible—that which. 
implies a contradiction? A new and admirable commen- 
- tary indeed ! ge ae ye 

The texts, my dear sir, were quoted against authoritatewe 


of 


= ot Hy ae 


Ot gta 3 


4 


toleration. They were quoted to prove, that no man or 
magistrate has a right to assume the character of a judge in 
matters of religion—that he has no right to license men to 
publish and’ propagate whatever doctrines he may think | 
‘proper, and to prohibit by law the publication of others. — 
The doctrines which are tolerated are cither the true and ’ 
genuine doctrines of the bible, or they are not. If they are 
not the doctrines of the bible ; for any mortal man to give 
them the sanction of his authority, is downright rebellion 
against the king and- head ‘of the church—to -sanction by 
civil law what is contrary to the divine law, is nothing less 
than treason against the king of Heaven. What would be 
thought of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, were he to issue 
proclamations, tolerating us to obev laws directly contrary 
to the laws of the land? On the other hand; if the doe- 
trines tolerated are the true and genuine doctrines of the 
bible, they require no toleration—they disdain it. To pre- 
tend to tolerate such doctrines, is to insult the majesty of 
Heaven. How impious for any monarch, who is but a 
‘worm of the dust, to say to the subjects of king Jesus, “I 
tolerate you to obey your master !”’ Does not such language 
imply, that he has a right to prohibit their obedience if he 
pleases, and that his authority is paramount to that of the 
blessed Redeemer! What “would be thought of the Presi- 
dent of the United States, if, coming over to Ireland, he 
were to issue proclamations, tolerating us to obey the 
laws of our country ! 

Such, my,dear sir, is that legal toleration, of which you 
appear to be so great an admirer, and against which Cove- 
nanters esteem it their duty to testify. Now, every person 
must at once see, that it is not, the enemies of legal toler- 
ation, but its friends, that plead-fer the interference of the 
civil magistrate in matters of religion—they must see, that 
Covenanters, in testifying against legal toleration, are testi- 
fying against the interference of the civil magistrate : and 
that the Rev. Presbyterian, by approving of legal tolera- 
tion, approves, at the same time, of magistratical inter- 
ference. ie 

You tell us, that our forefathers, like Jesus and his apos- 
tles, could have struggled for toleration. Pray, in what one 
instance did our blessed Redeemer and his apostles struggle 
for a legal toleration? It would border too nearly on 
blasphemy to suppose it. Did the Redeemer struggle to 
obtain a legal toleration from Herod? How different his 


316 ' 
a 
conden !—*¢ Go ye and tell that fox, behold I cast out de- 
vils and do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I 
shall be perfected.” 

It is true, indeed, that in your dialogue you declainis very 
much against the interference of the magistrates in matters 
of religion. I confess, however, that I find it very difficult 
to give you credit for the sincerity ly of your declamation.— 
I am sure it would require more ingenuity than I can boast 
of, to reconcile your professions and your practice. We 
have just now seen, that you contradict those professions by 
approving of authoritative toleration. . In a variety of other 
particulars, the inconsistency-of your ¢onduct is still more 
glaring—F or instance ; ; why do you allow the civil magis- 
trate to dictate to you in the appointment of days of public 
fasting and thanksgiving? Is this to disclaim magistratical 
interference ? Is this to ‘+ call no man master 2?” Is this 
to act in agreeableness to the divine prohibition—** Be not 
' ye the servants of men?” Again: 

Why do you allow the civil magistrate to dictate to you 
in the manner of swearing? Swearing is one of the most 
solemn acts of worship. “To direct us in the manner of its 
performance we have the example of God himself—of his 
saints—and of his son. Our blessed Redeemer “lifted up 
his hand to heaven, and swear by him that liveth for ever 
and ever—that there-should he time no longer.”? Book- 
swearing has its foundation neither in scripture ni nor 
example : it can only be traced to heathenish idolatry.— 
No matter : it is enjoined by the civil magistrate ; and 
with you, it appears that Ais authority for the manner 
of performing this solemn act of worship 1 is perfectly suffi- 
cient. 

Allow me, sir, to ask you ¢ as a Dissenter, Why did you 
separate from the church of England? Was not our prin- 
cipal reason the imposition of human rites and ceremonies ? — 
Now, sir, if you submit to the imposition of one ceremony, 
why not of two? why not of ten? why not of all the cere- 
monies of the church of England? If you obey the civil 
magistrate when he commands.you to touch and kiss the 
book in swearing, upon the same principle, would you not 
obey him, were he to command you to kneel at the sacra- 
ment, to use the sign of the cross in baptism, or to con- 
form to all the other ceremonies of the established church ? 
You would not suffer the church to wreathe about your 
neck: a yoke of ceremonies. You stood fast in the liberty 


"i, 
=) ye ve & 
"i 


_ wherewith Christ has made you free: why then have you 


surrendered that liberty at the discretion of the state? By 
submitting to the dictation of the civil magistrate in the 
article of book-swearing, have you not entirely given up 
one. principal ground of your dissent from the church of 
England? You assure us, that it is impossible to prove, 
that magistrates have any authority to. dictate to us how 
we are to worship the Deity. J think so too. Why then 
do you suffer them to dictate to you in that solemn act of 


‘ worship, swearing ? Has not our Saviour expressly declar- 
P g Pp 


ed, ‘‘In vain’ do they worship me, teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men.’’* fy 

You are. very much afraid lest erceds and confessions di- 
vert our attention from the word of God. Pray, sir, whether 
do. Covenanters or you adhere most closely to that divine 
word in the article of swearing ? 

But again: If you.are in earnest in deprecating the 
interference of the civil magistrate in matters of religion, 
why do you strain every nerve to obtain a coalition with 
the general assembly of the church of Scotland? Do you 
not know, that the king is virtually the head of that 


church; or at least, that a compromise is made of her 


headship between the king of England and the Lord Jesus 
Christ? Do you not know, that the king assumes the 
right of calling, adjourning, or dissolving her assemblies at 
*his pleasure ; and that he has sometimes exercised that right 
in a very arbitrary manner? Do you not know, that he 
claims it as his prerogative to circumscribe the objects of 
their attention, and to prohibit them from discussing such 
matters as. he may judge improper? Do you,not know, 
that he prescribes for the ministers of that church whatever 
political oaths he pleases, as an indispensable qualification 


for the exercise of their office? Do you not know, that 


‘* 


~ 


* The above observations are not intended as a censure on the civil 
government. ‘The government is Episcopalian. Episcopalians act 
consistently ; and yet, book-swearing has been condemned by-some of 
the most respectable dignitaries of the established church, It is only 
Dissenters who.are inconsistent. Nor would this mode be imposed up- 


on them, were government convinced thatit wasreally obnoxious. A. 
respectful remonstrance would obtain for them immediate relief— 


judges and inferior magistrates are, in general, extremely indulgent,— 
Some of the latter have, in a very generous and disinterested manner, 
be en exerting themselves to have the grievance redressed. 


ine 
S18". 
i ; ial . 

“he peremptorily commands the ministers of that church, as 
-his servants, to read on the Lord’s day his proclamations, 
or other state papers, which may be subservient to the pur- 
poses ‘of government? Do you not know that the right of 
presenting to vacant charges, is, in many instances, vested 
in the crown ?—Now, sir, can any person in the world give 
you credit for the sincerity of your professions? Can 
any person believe, that you have a strong aversion to the 
interference of the civil magistrate in matters of religion ? 
If you have such an aversion, why did you persevere so 
long in fruitless attempts to obtain a coalition with the 
Erastian church of Scotland? i 

The truth is, that a variety of churches at present, so far 
from deprecating the interference of the civil magistrate, - 
seem to value themselves in proportion to the intimacy of 
their connexion with the state. The general assembly 
were not ashamed to avow this principle, when, in their 
communication to the general synod, they declared—that in 


consequence of the respectable footing on which the synod — 


_ Btood with his majesty’s government, they thought it might 
be expedient to have communion established between the 
two bodies, &c. The church of England looks down on 
the church of Scotland, because she does not stand on so 
respectable a footing with his majesty’s government: the 
church of Scotland looks down on her Presbyterian sister 
in Ireland, because she does not stand on so respectable a’ 
footing with his majesty’s government : for the same reason 
does not the general synod look downon the secession church, 


&c.? and yet sir, where is the candid observer who would 


presume to deny, ‘‘ That the declension of churches from 
primitive christianity may in general be estimated by the re- 
spectability of the footing on which they stand with the 
civil governments of the nations ?”? Did not an aged and 


respectable member of the general synod, when comment-- 


ing on the assembly’s letter, shrewdly observe, “ that neither 
the twelve apostles of the lamb, nor even the Lord Jesus 


Christ himself, were he to come down from the right hand - 4 


of God, would be admitted into the pulpits of the general 
assembly of Scotland?” Why? because they would not 
stand on a respectable footing with his majesty’s govern- 
ment! Would to God the above pointed remark were ap- 
plicable to no assembly in the world, but only the general 
assembly of Scotland! = ~- S 


| 


i 319 e 

"That all churches without exception, so far as they have 
deviated from primitive Christianity, may with one accord 
retrace their steps, ‘‘ seeking the Lord their God, and in- 
_ quiring the way to Zion with their faces thitherward,” is the 
_ fervent prayer of, ~ 

: : Rev. Sir, 

: Your sincere friend, as 

% And very humble servant, 

JOHN PAUL. 


Loughmourne, April.1, 1819. 


FINIS, 


Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 


1012 01 029 2219 


= : eS 


Se 


Ihe es sows 
pases ceceer es 
Soles depres mae 


acd 


eee 


